Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of the right honourable Iain Macleod, Member for Enfield, West, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the right honourable Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

TOR BAY HARBOUR BILL

WHITEHAVEN HARBOUR BILL

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified]

Read the Third time and passed.

SALOP COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Ordered,
That Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) be suspended and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

WILTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

ELECTION EXPENSES

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return showing the Expenses of each Candidate at the General Election of June 1970, in the United Kingdom, as transmitted to the Returning Officers pursuant to the Representation of the People Act 1949, and of the number of votes polled by each candidate, the number of polling districts and stations, the number of electors, and the number of persons entitled to vote by post.—[Mr. Sharples.]

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

Henry Moore Statue

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make a statement on the future of the Henry Moore statue, Knife Edge, which stands outside Parliament.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): This sculpture was presented to the nation by Henry Moore and the Contemporary Arts Society in 1967 and the change in its position has now been made at their suggestion and expense.

Mr. Marten: Would it not be better for the reputation of this very distinguished sculptor if this statue were placed in a more suitable position? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it now stands on a black marble pedestal against a Gothic background, that this does not set it off properly, and that it ought to be moved elsewhere, perhaps to a sylvan setting? Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider it?

Mr. Kershaw: There is no example of the work of this eminent sculptor in the centre of London and it is thought that there ought to be. It was desired to make the presentation a little better by putting it on a plinth and turning it round the other way.

Labour-only Sub-contracting

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will introduce legislation to curb the avoidance of tax and insurance payments within the building industry.

Mr. Loughlin: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he intends to reintroduce the Construction Industry Contracts Bill, published in the last Parliament.

Mr. Heffer: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will introduce a Bill to deal with labour-only sub-contracting in the construction industry.

Mr. Ashton: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he proposes to make a statement on his policy on labour-only sub-contracting.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he will introduce legislation to end or restrict labour-only sub-contracting.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Julian Amery): I have this matter under consideration and will make a statement in due course.

Mr. Hamilton: Could the Minister explain why he does not see fit to reintroduce the Bill which was brought in by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), the previous Minister of Public Building and Works? If not, does he intend to introduce legislation this Session?

Mr. Amery: All I have said is that I have the matter under review. The hon. Gentleman will recall that it took the previous Administration some five years to decide to bring in a Bill at all. Therefore, it is only fair that I should ask for a little time.

Mr. Loughlin: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with the comment that it took us five years to decide, as he well knows. Dealing with the matter as it stands, is he aware that not only were both sides of the industry desirous that it should be dealt with speedily but that both sides of the House, by agreement, got the Bill through its Committee stage in four sittings? Does not he think that it is time that he took action to deal with this scandal?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman cannot describe as a scandal a matter which his Administration did not attempt to remedy for five years. I am in consultation with the industry about it. As the hon. Gentleman will remember, we on this side raised a number of reservations in Committee. It is only reasonable that we should give ourselves a little time. We are opposed to the concept of instant government.

Mr. Heffer: Is not it clear that the Minister's answer is absolutely disgraceful? Even accepting that it took five years to introduce the Bill—which is not true, anyway—is not it clear that both sides of the industry have said time after


time that this matter must be dealt with quickly, and is not it also clear that the right hon. Gentleman should bring legislation before the House at the earliest possible moment—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not regard it as important, but, as a building trade worker, I regard it as very important—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be brief.

Mr. Heffer: Then may I make the point? Will the Minister give us a clear answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), and say that legislation will be brought before the House this Session?

Mr. Amery: Until the end of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I found it difficult to elucidate which question he was asking. He has now made it clear. I have said that I have the matter under review and will make a statement in due course.

Mr. Ashton: Why is it that while on major policy matters, such as sales of arms to South Africa and bringing back the eleven-plus, it is possible to make decisions in three days, the same cannot be done with a small Measure like this?

Mr. Amery: Small Measures are often difficult.

Mr. Lipton: Of course, we all know the right hon. Gentleman's views on private enterprise, but does he not think that, when private enterprise is carried to the extent of a racket, dodging income tax and insurance payments, action should be taken? Can we have an assurance that he will take steps to end this racket some time in the next five years, preferably as soon as possible?

Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman's question would be more appropriate when I make my statement.

Mr. Costain: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the Measure brought in by the Socialist Government was a steamhammer to crack a nut? Does not he consider that this problem can be overcome by introducing a system of registration similar to 56AB introduced in 1947, without the need for complicated, bureaucratic interference?

Mr. Amery: The considerations raised by my hon. Friend are among

those which make me anxious to review the whole matter carefully.

Mr. John Silkin: May I first congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on taking over a very fine Department? Secondly, may I ask him to have consultations with his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), who introduced a Bill into this House in February of this year on the ground that too much time had already gone by?

Mr. Amery: I have already been in touch with my hon. Friend about it and his advice is a matter on which I shall lean.

Unemployment

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many building trade operatives are unemployed; and what steps he will take to provide them with work.

Mr. Heffer: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what plans he has to reduce unemployment in the building industry.

Mr. Amery: In June of this year 93,718 persons were unemployed in the construction industry. The overall prospects are bound up with those of the economy as a whole. Meanwhile my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is seeking to stimulate demand for house improvements through the local authorities. My Department is encouraging the industry to renew its efforts in this direction.

Mr. Allaun: The right hon. Gentleman must realise that that is not good enough. Will he press his Ministerial colleagues to take the brakes off house building, both private and council, so that the unemployed and ill-housed may both benefit?

Mr. Amery: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will do my best in these directions. We hope to get back to the situation which prevailed in 1964, when only 41,872 persons, or less than half the present number, were unemployed.

Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman follow the lead given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin) and discuss the whole matter with the builders? Secondly, will


he press ahead with discussions with his right hon. Friends on the abolition of S.E.T. at the earliest moment? Thirdly, will he see to it that the maximum assistance for house building is given to local authorities? Fourthly, will he follow up the suggestion of giving financial help to all small builders so as to get building going again?

Mr. Amery: I have already been in touch with representatives of both sides of the industry. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support in suggesting that we press on with the abolition of S.E.T.

Bricks

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he is taking to reduce the stock of bricks; and whether these will now be used for house-building.

Mr. Amery: I expect the brick industry to benefit from a general recovery in construction including housebuilding.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the average monthly stock of bricks since January of this year has been about 1,000 million? Would not it be sensible to try to employ the 93,000 out-of-work building operatives in picking 1,000 million bricks off the floor and building a few more houses with them?

Mr. Amery: We hope to get back to the situation which prevailed in 1964, when average monthly stocks were only 115 million. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing this to my attention.

Sir G. Nabarro: Well done. Rub it in.

Ministerial Cars

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many Ministerial cars were in use in April, 1970 and how many drivers were employed; what were the comparable figures on 20th July, 1970; what changes in their number he will make; and what will be the effect on public funds.

Mr. Kershaw: In April, 1970, 63 Ministerial cars were in use, employing 63 drivers. The comparable figures for 20th July, 1970 were 57 cars and 57 drivers. The reduction in cars and drivers represents an annual saving of about £17,000.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, based on 10,000 miles a year, it costs 5s. per mile to run a Ministerial car, including a driver? As a Member of the House of Commons gets 6d. per mile on official journeys, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that although all Members of the House of Commons are equal, some evidently are more equal than others?

Mr. Kershaw: I always listen to my hon. Friend's advice on all these matters. If we should find ourselves facing a shortage of cars, perhaps my hon. Friend will lend us some of his.

Mr. Golding: Do these estimates include the increasing cost of petrol which has been incurred as a result of competition between the petroleum companies?

Mr. Kershaw: These are the latest figures, including all the increases which have taken place in the last six years.

Mr. John Silkin: Will the hon. Gentleman consider increasing the number of Ministerial cars so that those of his right hon. and hon. Friends who appear to have difficulty in arriving in time for Questions or Adjournment debates can be better accommodated?

Palace of Westminster

Mr. John Wells: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will extend and improve the air conditioning system in the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Kershaw: At the request of the previous Services Committee, my Department will try out a system of partial air-conditioning in the Smoking Room. The work will be carried out during the Recess. If the experiment is successful, the system could be extended to other specific rooms.

Mr. Wells: Will my hon. Friend examine for the future the smaller dining rooms at the Terrace level and the Library, which is quite revolting at the end of the summer months in the late evenings? Secondly, will British or imported equipment be considered for the preliminary experiment? Will he look into the possibility of using British equipment made in the Maidstone constituency?

Mr. Kershaw: I am afraid that I cannot answer the last part of the question.

Mr. Wells: Why not?

Mr. Kershaw: I will get in touch with my hon. Friend about it. The Services Committee has decided that the Library should be air conditioned, but the trial which is being carried out is in the Member's Dining Room in the first instance, not in the Library.

Mr. Driberg: Did the Parliamentary Secretary say that there was to be partial air conditioning in the smoking room? If so, what does he mean by that? It is already very draughty in the winter.

Mr. Kershaw: It will all be air conditioned, but perhaps it will be more thoroughly done if the Services Committee decides that the experiment is a success.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what works he proposes to carry out in the Palace of Westminster during the summer Recess in order to improve facilities for Members.

Mr. Kershaw: As the list of these works is rather long and detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
We also intend to carry out work necessary to provide desk accommodation for some 75 Members and secretaries in Palace Chambers.

Mr. Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that I intended to raise in a supplementary question that there are too many hon. Members who still have not got desks? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it is more important that hon. Members should have desks than that they should have separate rooms, and that the sooner we can get to a situation in which every hon. Member has a desk the better?
Secondly, will my hon. Friend give some priority—I do not know whether this is included in his list—to attending to the kitchens, which are antiquated, serving the Member's Dining Room and the Strangers' Dining Room?

Mr. Kershaw: The first point is for the Services Committee.
The construction of a new central stores area to facilitate efficient service in the kitchens is one of the things which will be done.

Mr. Orme: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the time has come for a drastic overhaul of the whole of the facilities in this House? What has happened to the proposals which have constantly been made for major improvements'? Will the Government look at this matter with some urgency?

Mr. Kershaw: The hon. Gentleman must speak, first, to the Services Committee about that.

Following are the details:
1. Experimental air conditioning installation in the Smoking Room.
2. Construction of a new Central Stores Area to facilitate the provision of an efficient service to Members by the Refreshment Department.
3. Works associated with cabling for the new PABX telephone system.
4. The re-decoration of all floors of St. Stephen's Porch.
5. Improvements to the lavatories of St. Stephen's Hall and Porch.
6. Improved inner window units in Committee Rooms 6 and 10.
7. Improvements to lighting in East and West Writing Room and Members' Room on the upper Committee corridor.
8. General refurbishing of carpets and upholstery where necessary.

North-East (Buildings for Government Departments)

Mr. Bob Brown: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what proposals he has for the erection of further major buildings for use by Government departments in the North-East.

Mr. Amery: I cannot announce any proposals until the Government's current review of public expenditure is completed.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I hope that this is an indication that he will be announcing proposals for the North-East. Does the Minister agree that the South-East is desperately over-crowded and that he would be doing a service to civil servants by giving them the opportunity to work in a delightful part of the country?

Mr. Amery: We shall certainly give high priority to doing the best that we can to raise the position in the regions where employment prospects at present are most difficult.

North-East (Civil Engineering)

Mr. Bob Brown: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what proposals he has to increase the employment opportunity in civil engineering in the North-East.

Mr. Amery: The prospects of an improvement in employment in civil engineering in the North-East will depend on the general progress of the economy as a whole. The Government will be paying particular attention to the circumstances of the less prosperous regions in developing their regional policies.

Mr. Brown: Does the Minister consider that he would be doing a service to the development areas if, in consultation with his right hon. Friend, Tory-controlled local authorities were encouraged to get down to more building in these areas?

Mr. Amery: I will certainly discuss the hon. Gentleman's point with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Indeed, we are already in correspondence.

Serpentine Gallery

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many visitors there have been to the Serpentine Gallery in Kensington Gardens since its opening; and what is the average daily attendance.

Mr. Kershaw: About 33,000 people have visited the Gallery since it was opened; the average daily attendance has been around 450.

Mr. Jeger: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the view put forward that this should be used for children's entertainment of a theatrical nature during long school holidays?

Mr. Kershaw: It was considered that this might be used for a children's playground. It was offered to two of the bodies concerned, but they found the staffing too difficult.
Concerning stage shows for children, there are free puppet shows in Kensington Gardens during the summer, and they will be continued.

Construction Industry (Accidents)

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what assistance he is giving to publicity for the pretion of accidents in the construction industry.

Mr. Kershaw: Industrial safety, health and welfare is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, but my right hon. Friend gives assistance by promoting accident prevention in advisory leaflets, in lectures and in displays at various exhibitions.

Mr. Allason: Has my hon. Friend seen the safety signs similar to road signs which have been introduced by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers?

Mr. Kershaw: I cannot say that I have done so. However, we are in close touch with the National Federation of Building Trades Employers and I will take steps to do so.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the tremendous amount of work done by hon. Members on both sides on the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill in the last Parliament? Will he bring strong pressure to bear on his colleagues to have the Bill brought before the House again so that steps may be taken to try to prevent some of the severe and disastrous accidents from occurring in industry?

Mr. Kershaw: I will bring the attention of my right hon. Friend to what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. John Silkin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the best ways of preventing accidents in the construction industry would be to bring in a Bill immediately to abolish labour-only subcontracting?

Mr. Kershaw: My right hon. Friend has already made a statement about that.

Consultative Committees

Mr. Harper: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he has now reviewed the number of his Department's consultative committee for the building industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Amery: No, Sir; but if the hon. Member will table a Question after the Recess I hope to be able to give him my considered view.

Mr. Harper: I will certainly do that. But it is a rather surprising answer when we recall that the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends, when in opposition, constantly chided us that, by one stroke of the pen, they would abolish all these consultative committees. What has induced them to change their minds?

Mr. Amery: I is always wise to review these matters with great care—[Interruptionj The Labour Party certainly had a remarkable record in doing so.

Fixed-Price Contracts

Mr. Hilton: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will reduce the number of Departmental contracts let on a fixed-price basis, is view of the sporadic and large increases in costs within the building industry.

Mr. Amery: I am considering representations made to me by the industry on this subject.

Mr. Hilton: Does the Minister agree that in a period of serious and sporadic rises any contractor on a fixed-price tender is taking a gamble which is not good for him, for his operatives, or for the client, and that urgent consideration must be given to the situation?

Mr. Amery: There are strong arguments on the industry's side which the hon. Gentleman was condensing. The hon. Gentleman must also remember that I am anxious to do nothing which will reduce demand at a time when one of the most important factors in the industry's prospects is to stimulate demand.

Mr. Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his Ministry is the largest in the Government concerned with

letting building contracts and that there is considerable concern about the way in which the contracting has been done in the past? Do I gather from my right hon. Friend's reply that he is making an overall review of the way in which building contracts are being let?

Mr. Amery: Yes, that is the case. I am making an overall review.

British Standard Time

Mr. Golding: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimates he has made of the effect of British Standard Time on the construction industry; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Kershaw: The Department has made a survey on behalf of the National Consultative Council of the effects of British Standard Time on the industry in the winter 1969–70. This report was communicated to the Home Office and a copy was placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Golding: Is the Minister aware that the additional cost to young couples buying houses as a result of British Standard Time is extremely high? Does he appreciate the concern felt by the construction industry about British Standard Time and the feeling that it should be brought to end as quickly as possible?

Mr. Kershaw: I am aware of the feeling in the construction industry and the view that B.S.T. costs money. That feeling gets stronger the further north one goes, for obvious reasons. But the general policy on British Standard Time is a matter for the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will take this point into consideration in a general survey which he is to make.

Mr. Brewis: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that the effect of British Standard Time is much worse in Scotland? Will he endeavour to get rid of it as soon as he possibly can?

Mr. Kershaw: Yes. I realise that it is felt more in that part of the country.

Federation of Master Builders

Mr. Loughlin: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will recognise the Federation of Master


Builders as an official body for the purposes of negotiation.

Mr. Amery: I had a useful meeting last week with the President and the National Executive of the Federation and I look forward to having further such meetings from time to time.

Mr. Loughlin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I do not want to be mischievous, as I realise the delicacy of the position. However, as the Federation has 21,000, albeit small, builders, as against the 12,000 of the N.F.B.T.E., may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to pursue a policy to ensure recognition of the Federation as quickly as possible?

Mr. Amery: I have no immediate plans to vary the arrangements made by my predecessors. I, for my part, would gladly give any help that I can to bring about a merger or closer co-operation, but only if invited to do so by the parties concerned.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a distinction? I am asking him not to bring about a merger but to work towards the recognition of this body as a separate entity. The merger is for it to carry out, not us.

Mr. Amery: As I said, I have no immediate plans to vary the arrangements which were in force under the previous Government, but it is in the interests of the industry, as well as being convenient to the Government, to reduce the large number of sometimes overlapping representative bodies, and amalgamations on terms agreeable to the parties concerned would be welcome. While I shall be glad to give help, I can do so only if invited to do so by all the parties concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Agricultural Price Review

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will institute an interim agricultural price review.

Mr. Peter Mills: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the substantial increase in costs to the British agricultural industry, he

will consider a special autumn review of farmers prices to reimburse them for increased production costs.

Mr. W. Baxter: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will bring in a supplementary price review.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): My right hon. Friends and I are aware of the difficulties facing the industry and are prepared to listen to any representations.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer does not go far enough and that when this year's Agricultural Price Review award was announced the Conservative Party drew attention to the highly inflationary situation in which the industry was finding itself'? Since his Government came to office there have been considerable cost increases, both in fuel and in transport. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to sit by idly and to allow this to go on with nothing more than a promise to consider representation? What does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Prior: I hope that the hon. Gentleman voted against his party in the debate which took place just after the Price Review.

Mr. Baxter: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consult his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and to recall what he said when he was on this side of the House? The hon. Gentleman said that it was necessary for him to have his parliamentary salary to subsidise his agricultural activities. As I recollect, the hon. Gentleman seemed to say at that time that he had had considerable consultations with the farming community and was thoroughly convinced that a supplementary review would be necessary.

Mr. Prior: I hope that we can rely on the continued support of the hon. Gentleman.

Sir D. Renton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in East Anglia especially there are a number of farmers who, because of weather conditions, are having their third bad season, and that unless some help is given in the course of this year they may not be able to go on farming?


This applies especially to the smallholders.

Mr. Prior: I am aware of the problems of my right hon. and learned Friend's constituents, and I should like to do as much as I can to help, but a combination of three bad seasons and the attitude adopted by the Opposition when they were the Government was enough to reduce the industry to a very low level.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has given the vaguest possible answers? Will he be more specific? Does he recall that he and his hon. Friends called the 1970 Price Review "derisory" and "appalling"? In view of that, will he now say that he will introduce an interim Price Review, or is he prepared honestly to agree that, having been in the Department for a few days, he sees the 1970 Price Review as having been fair and reasonable?

Mr. Prior: If the Price Review were as reasonable as the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make out, why are his hon. Friends asking me for one now?

Support System

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with whom he will hold discussions concerning changes in the system of financial support of agriculture.

Mr. Prior: I am considering this matter. Broadly I intend to hold discussions with representatives of the domestic interests directly concerned and with overseas suppliers.

Mr. Maclennan: Why did the Conservative Party announce, prior to the election, that it was proposing to remove farmers' security by altering the agricultural price support system and increasing the cost to housewives without having carried out these full-scale consultations upon which he is now apparently to embark?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman should not make irresponsible remarks about moving the guarantees in that way. It does no good to the farming community, and little credit to the hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends. We need no lessons from the Opposition in putting up food prices. They increased food prices in 1969 by no less than £310 million.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: As an increase in food prices is implicit in the right hon. Gentleman's policy, may I ask whether he is prepared to consult the consumer interests as a matter of urgency? Second, will he give an undertaking that in his negotiations with other countries, if he fails to negotiate the levies, he will impose them unilaterally?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. I think that we had better see how we get on. I am giving no undertakings of any sort.

White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to reorganise the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board and consider their possible amalgamation.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for the future financing of the White Fish Authority.

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy in regard to an increase in the powers of the White Fish Authority.

Mr. Prior: I have not yet had an opportunity to meet the Chairman of the Authority or to discuss issues such as these with the industry. Both steps should, I think, precede any proposals which could involve legislation.

Mr. Wall: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the recommendation of the Select Committee on Agriculture and Fisheries and consider setting up a committee to look into the whole problem of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board?

Mr. Prior: I shall always give consideration to Select Committee Reports, but I do not wish to get involved in setting up a committee to look at an authority.

Mr. Johnson: I am glad to see a Member for a fishing port at the Dispatch Box. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten that when he was on these benches he consistently and persistently attacked the White Fish Authority which he wished to see abolished? Why can


he not be consistent and come clean about the whole matter?

Mr. Prior: I have not forgotten. I doubted whether the needs of the industry were best served in the present form of organisation, but the House would not expect me to have had proper consultations in the month that we have been in office. When I have, I shall bring forward legislative proposals.

Mr. McNamara: Having heard the right hon. Gentleman's comments, may I ask when he is likely to come to the House with a considered opinion on this problem? Is he aware that many hon. Members want to see the White Fish Authority considerably strengthened, for example, by giving it control of training within the industry?

Mr. Prior: Our style of Government is to consider everything carefully.

Mr. Grimond: We appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman must have time to look at this, but will he bear in mind that there is a strong case for amalgamating these authorities, and that many fishermen in the North of Scotland are confused about where they should make applications for grant? As the building of bigger ships is becoming more and more necessary, the case for amalgamation is very strong indeed.

Mr. Prior: I shall look at what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Horticulture

Mr. John Wells: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will have early talks with the National Farmers' Unions about further improving the competitive position of British horticulture.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): My right hon. Friend will shortly be having a general discussion about horticulture with the Chairman of the Central Horticultural Committee and other representatives of the National Farmers' Union.

Mr. Wells: Can my hon. Friend give us an assurance that British horticultural interests will be safeguarded while the European Common Market negotiations proceed?

Mr. Stodart: That is a slightly wider question, but the answer must, in the long run, lie in seeing that the industry is strong enough to meet its competitors with confidence, and the various grants for improvements which have been made towards efficiency are going in the direction to make it so.

Mr. Dalyell: How long is the long run about which the hon. Gentleman spoke?

Mr. Stodart: That is a matter for negotiation.

Hill Farming

Mr. Brewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has for improving the profitability of hill farming.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: We are making an urgent study of the position of the livestock industry generally, including livestock rearing, as part of our assessment of agricultural policies.

Mr. Brewis: Will my hon. Friend assure us that the present Government regard the hill-farming industry as an important part of British agriculture and will keep its importance in mind during both the Price Review and the Common Market negotiations?

Mr. Stodart: Yes, Sir. As regards the Common Market negotiations, this is one of the matters which has been mentioned by my right hon. Friend as being of fundamental importance. I accept what my hon. Friend said. Farming in the hills and uplands is closely and essentially linked with that of the low ground from which prosperity must come.

Mr. David Clark: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that hill farming is often unprofitable and that in many cases afforestation would not only be more profitable, but would bring more employment to rural areas?

Mr. Stodart: I would not in the least dispute that the policies of the previous Government have affected the hill areas even more gravely than those on the low ground.

Mr. Mackie: Does the Minister expect, in the Government's new policy, to get the bulk of the hill-land income from the


results of a levy or from direct grants as at present?

Mr. Stodart: We have made it absolutely clear throughout that there will be no alteration generally in production grants.

Hill Cow Subsidy

Mr. Brewis: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consideration he has given to allowing replacement heifers which are in calf at the June census to qualify for the hill-cow subsidy.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: This matter is being considered by the Hill Farming Advisory Committee.

Mr. Brewis: Does the hon. Member not consider that the qualifying conditions have been somewhat rigid in the past? Will he discuss them with the N.F.U. and other representative bodies?

Mr. Stodart: There has certainly been a tendency for autumn calving to become more popular. There are reasons of good husbandry for this, although not all hill farms are entirely suitable for it. We shall certainly consider this point urgently.

Food Prices

Mr. Alfred Morris: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he proposes to use the machinery of the National Board for Prices and Incomes for the examination of price increases for foodstuffs; and if he will make a statement;
(2) if he proposes to require food manufacturers to justify price increases to him; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he proposes to continue to operate the early warning system for price increases in manufacturing foodstuffs; and if he will make a statement;
(2) what discussions he is having with the Food Manufacturers' Federation on food price increases; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on how many occasions he has intervened to stop increases in the retail prices of food.

Mr. Prior: I cannot at present add to the reply I gave the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 7th July, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity proposes to make a statement before the Recess on the Government's general policy on these matters.—[Vol. 803, c. 25.]

Mr. Morris: Is the Minister aware that even my hon. Friend did not regard that as a reply? Can he be more specific and definitive? [Interruption.] I have two Questions down, and I should be allowed two supplementaries. Is the Minister aware that many people want the Conservative Party to honour its pledge and not virtually to ignore unjustified price increases, so that they have no scrutiny at all?

Mr. Prior: The hon. Member had better wait for my right hon. Friend's statement.

Mr. Moyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that the early warning system was entered into with the voluntary agreement of the food manufacturers and therefore will he think before he drops the idea?

Mr. Prior: Yes, but from what I gather from the food manufacturers they did not think much of it.

Mr. Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many hon. Members on this side of the House would like to see the National Board for Prices and Incomes done away with and do not want any action from him to sustain it? If the early warning system, as operated by his Department, were done away with, would it mean a considerable reduction in expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture?

Mr. Prior: We must await the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State later in the week. The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is, "Yes; to do away with the early warning system would result in an economy."

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: In view of the current practices during the dock strike in relation to apples and oranges, for example, which the right hon. Gentleman himself has deplored, does he still believe that it would be best for the country,


and particularly for the housewife, to continue with competition and the market forces that he has advocated?

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Barnett: Is the Minister's hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Home Office conducting the Government in the same style as himself, because he committed him yesterday to power to control prices at the retail point in the present strike? Does the Minister agree, and, if so, how can he do it when the wholesalers are increasing their prices?

Mr. Prior: The Government would use the powers available to them if they had to. The House had ample opportunity to discuss this matter yesterday.

Mr. Molloy: Is the Minister aware that many housewives believe that his advice to shop around and look for alternatives is a complete abdication of his authority, and that he has caved in to the threats of the racketeers and is not worthy to hold the office that he now holds as long as those racketeers can say the sort of thing that they have been saying to a Minister of the Crown? Is he also aware that advertisements are appearing in the newspaper in respect of goods which are being hoarded, in order to blackmail housewives, and that the Minister is doing nothing about it?

Mr. Prior: Let me make the position absolutely clear. If the dockers go back to work the prices will come down.

Mr. Morris: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

FRENCH PRIME MINISTER (VISIT)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the French Prime Minister to visit him.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have no plans to do so at present, Sir.

Mr. Marten: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us would very much like to see the French Prime Minister here and to hear his views on political

federalism? Will my right hon. Friend say whether, in the event of the other members of an enlarged Community assenting to federalism, the British Government are likely to do so as well?

The Prime Minister: That is such a hypothetical question that I would not venture to answer it.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Does the Prime Minister hold to the view expressed in his Godkin Lecture on nuclear sharing with France? Was this discussed last week in Paris by the Foreign Secretary with M. Schumann and, if so, can we have a statement about that meeting at the earliest moment?

The Prime Minister: There are two Questions to me later on the Order Paper about that.

PRIME MINISTER (OVERSEAS VISITS)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to visit Zambia and other African members of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to make an official visit to Australia.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to the Persian Gulf.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to Zambia and Tanzania at his early convenience.

The Prime Minister: Apart from attending the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting in Singapore in January, I have no firm plans for overseas visits at present.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Prime Minister recognise that if the Government continue to pursue their plan for supplying arms to South Africa the Commonwealth is in danger of disintegration? Some of these Prime Ministers might not even attend the conference in Singapore. Will he therefore seek, before the Commonwealth conference, to invite those African leaders to this country, to discuss this whole problem with them?

The Prime Minister: I have been in consultation with the Commonwealth leaders. I have had no complaint about the method of consultation, but if they wish to adopt other methods I am quite prepared to consider them.

Mr. Dalyell: Can the Prime Minister comment on the attitude of the Australian Government to the question of arms for South Africa?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter for the Australian Government itself to make public. The discussions which we had are obviously confidential.

Mr. Sheldon: Referring to the suggested visit of the Prime Minister to the Persian Gulf, is he aware that few things make Conservative Governments appear more ridiculous than their constant hankering after a rôle in this area—an area in which we have little part to play, which has proved ruinously expensive in the past and in which we are not wanted at the present time?

The Prime Minister: I cannot agree with that view, and it was not the view held by the hon. Gentleman's Administration, until they quit to do a deal over Health Service charges.

Mr. Johnson: In view of the Foreign Secretary's ignominious and inept display at the Dispatch Box yesterday, and following the speech of Dr. Milton Obote in Kampala, is it not imperative that the Prime Minister should visit East Africa to see the distinguished Heads of State of Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia in order to clear up some of these misunderstandings?

The Prime Minister: As I have said, I have had consultations with them by different means during this period. They all understand that consultations are continuing.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Since the Prime Minister refused my suggestion a few days ago that he should publish the letter which was sent to the Commonwealth, and since that letter is now appearing in newspapers in different parts of the world, including New York, will he agree to print it as a White Paper before tomorrow's debate, so that we can see exactly how what he said to the Commonwealth reconciles with or fails to reconcile with the statement made

yesterday that no decision has been taken?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, because it is impossible to carry on any consultations with Heads of Government in Commonwealth countries if, at a later date, one is to publish the correspondence. I do not accept that newspapers have published the exchange which I have had with Commonwealth Governments, but if parts of an exchange do reach the Press through some means or other, there is no justification in my view for the British Prime Minister then publishing what has always been stated and accepted to be confidential consultation.

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, but since this is available to be read by people in New York, should it not be available to be read by hon. Members of this House before the debate? Will the right hon. Gentleman deny the statement which has been published, which purports to be his letter, which says that, against that background, we have decided that we should essentially, in relation to the demand for our own defence interests, return in part to our former policy for the supply of arms? If the right hon. Gentleman said that, how does he reconcile that with the statement repeatedly made in the House yesterday that no decision has been taken?

The Prime Minister: I reiterate that every Administration, including the right hon. Gentleman's own, has always adhered to the decision that, if consultations are to be confidential between Heads of Government, they should not be published. I propose to adhere to that.

MINISTERS (CONDUCT)

Mr. English: asked the Prime Minister what changes he has made in the regulations governing the conduct of Ministers.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir.

Mr. English: Does that mean, then, that the regulations differ from those of the previous Conservative Administration?

The Prime Minister: I shall have to go back and check carefully the differences which have emerged over the last half-century in advice of this kind


which is given to Ministers. What I am saying is that there is no difference between the advice in this document and that of the previous Administration.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Can the right hon. Gentleman refresh his mind by reference to his own previous experience in a Ministerial capacity?

The Prime Minister: These are obviously confidential instructions which are issued to Ministers. It is not possible for me, on the spur of the moment, to give any detailed comparisons with what was issued before. However, it is well known that, since this procedure was started, roughly half-a-century ago, there have been developments from time to time. On this occasion I have not found it necessary to change anything.

Mr. Michael Foot: Does the Prime Minister's reply about the consistency of his party on this matter mean, particularly in view of the reply which he gave to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, that, in the future as in the past with a Conservative Administration, whatever is to be leaked to the Press is not to be divulged to the House of Commons?

The Prime Minister: That matter does not arise, because the procedures followed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when in power in leaking things to the Press were not covered by instructions to Ministers.

NUCLEAR DEFENCE (BRITISH-FRENCH CO-OPERATION)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for discussing future co-ordination of British and French nuclear defences with the President of France.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for discussing future co-ordination of British and French nuclear defences with the President of France.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to agree with the proposition that if one day Western

Europe is to be endowed with a nuclear capacity which is not ultimately dependent on the willingness of the United States to commit suicide on our behalf, such a capacity must be built on a basis of Anglo-French co-operation, possibly, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, "complementary to N.A.T.O."?

The Prime Minister: If one is dealing with the precise situation which my hon. Friend is outlining, then, of course, because of the non-proliferation treaty, what he says is correct.

Mr. Allaun: From an exactly opposite point of view, would not disclosure of British nuclear secrets to France breach the non-proliferation pact? Might they not also pass via France to West Germany, which would end our hopes of an East-West détente in Europe?

The Prime Minister: The second part of that question is a matter for the French Government to state, and my experience has always been that they are absolutely dogmatic that none of their nuclear information is passed to the West German Government. So far as we are concerned, then, it was also publicly stated at the time of the non-proliferation treaty that for Powers which are already nuclear to exchange information in the way that the United States Administration, for example, and we ourselves do, is not in breach of the treaty.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can we at least have Anglo-French co-ordinated targetting in addition to national targetting and N.A.T.O. targetting? Would that not be a good start?

The Prime Minister: That is one particular aspect of a possible development of this kind. As I said in my main Answer to these two Questions, I have no plans for discussing this with the French Government at the moment.

Mr. Healey: But since the Prime Minister has reaffirmed, in something pubblished since the General Election, his view that there should be Anglo-French co-operation in the nuclear field, can he say why the Foreign Secretary yesterday suggested that he is waiting for a French proposal to this effect? Second, will he completely disavow the statement yesterday by the Foreign Secretary that there


might be co-operation between Britain and France in this field outside N.A.T.O. but parallel with N.A.T.O.?

The Prime Minister: I put forward this proposal, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, as long ago as the spring of 1965 in a lecture at Oxford, and I have developed it since then, as he pointed out, as recently as in the Godkin Lecture, which was published, in this country at any rate, this month. This is a matter of long-term possibility. When I first made the proposal, the French were members of N.A.T.O. and when I repeated it, I hoped that it would be a means of bringing them back into N.A.T.O. There is obviously a difference of view about this between leaders in France and leaders in this country.

Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman reaffirmed, did he not, last week—since the General Election and with France out of N.A.T.O.—that that was still part of the Government's policy? Can he explain precisely what he means by it? Will he reject, as I asked him to do in my earlier supplementary question, the suggestion of the Foreign Secretary yesterday that there might be Anglo-French nuclear co-operation in the military field outside N.A.T.O. but parallel to it?

The Prime Minister: "Complementary" to it. There are already arrangements between the French Government and N.A.T.O. on forces, as the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well—

Mr. Healey: Not nuclear.

The Prime Minister: Not in a nuclear field, no, I agree, but in other fields, as the right hon. Gentleman knows from his former experience. I see no reason why the Government should inhibit themselves by saying that they cannot discuss with the French Government any question of future arrangements, whether inside or outside N.A.T.O., but my hope remains that they could be done within N.A.T.O.

Mr. Paget: The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said that the credibility of our nuclear defence depended on American willingness to commit suicide on our behalf. Would not the credibility of an Anglo-French nuclear capacity depend upon our willingness to commit suicide on our own behalf?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman must be responsible for his own analysis of that situation.

Mr. Healey: I think that the House will recognise that this is a matter of the gravest concern, not only to the British people but to the whole of our alliance. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that, before making any proposals for co-operation with France separate from the existing N.A.T.O. machinery, he will first discuss those proposals with our loyal N.A.T.O. allies in the Nuclear Planning Group of N.A.T.O.?

The Prime Minister: Of course, any discussions of this kind must also be carried on at the same time with our friends in N.A.T.O.—[Interruption.] Necessarily at the same time, at any rate. But our N.A.T.O. allies are well aware of the views which I have expressed on a number of occasions, and when I was leader of the Opposition I discussed this policy with them.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Prime Minister in view of the fact that since the last time that the House of Commons came to a decision on matters pertaining to Great Britain's entry into the Common Market there has been a change of Government and a more than 33 per cent. change in the membership of the House of Commons, what proposals he has for obtaining the decision of the House.

The Prime Minister: We have opened negotiations for entry to the European Communities on fair and equal terms. Until negotiations are concluded the question of a decision by the House does not arise.

Mr. Lewis: No doubt unwittingly and unconsciously, the Prime Minister has evaded my Question. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I asked him to note that neither the electorate nor this House had had an opportunity to decide whether we should or should not even apply to negotiate? I suggested that the electorate or this House—it is, perhaps, no longer possible for the electorate to take this step, but it is still possible for the House to do so—should have an


opportunity of deciding whether there should be negotiations.

The Prime Minister: The House in general has accepted—

Mr. Lewis: No.

The Prime Minister: I was about to say that authority for the Government to proceed, whether given to the preceding Government or to the present Government, was given by the House in the debate which then led to the beginning of negotiations. I believe that that is the correct position.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Prime Minister's reply and the fact that he does not appear to have read my Question, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Notice should be given in the conventional way.

DIVISION LIST No. 8 (CORRECTION)

Mr. David Stoddart: On a point of Order. I am not sure that you called me by my correct name, Mr. Speaker, but it is about a mix-up in names that I rise to address you on a point of order.
I notice on the Division List for 20th July that I am included in both the Ayes and Noes Lobbies. It will be quite obvious to hon. Members on this side of the House that I went through only the "No" Lobby. Indeed, this occurred on 8th July, when although I did not raise the matter as a point of order with you, I raised it with your office, when those concerned were good enough to see that the matter was put right.
May I ask you now, Mr. Speaker, to put the matter right on this occasion and to do your level best to ensure that the same sort of thing does not happen again, for it is a matter of great regret to me that I should be included among some of the names on the benches opposite?

Mr. Speaker: Maiden speakers and new hon. Members are achieving remarkable things in this Parliament. The hon. Member has seemingly achieved a record in having voted in both Lobbies. A correction will be made.

TRIBUTES TO THE LATE MR. IAIN MACLEOD

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I rise with a heavy heart to pay tribute to Iain Macleod, whose death last night has come to us all as such a great shock.
He assumed office as Chancellor of the Exchequer barely a month ago. With that courage and determination in the face of pain which had become familiar to his friends and colleagues for many years, he persisted in making his first major speech in that office in the debate on the Address a fortnight ago, before allowing himself to be taken to hospital for an operation for appendicitis. He seemed to be making good progress. He had come home to Downing Street and was with his wife when he suffered the heart attack from which he died late last evening.
His death comes as a great personal sadness to me. We had been friends and colleagues in Parliament, in Government and in Opposition, since we were first elected in 1950. Together we had become members of that group which was known as One Nation. When he came to No. 10 to see me as I began to form this Administration, he recalled those days and said, quite simply, "That is where we began and now that is where we are carrying on".
He was a man of many parts. He was a lawyer by training, he had a most distinguished record of service in the war—during which he suffered those injuries which left him with the pain which dogged him for the rest of his life—he was a man of acute and subtle intelligence, and he was a hard-working and extremely capable Minister. He was a writer of distinction and a speaker of passionate eloquence, trenchancy and wit, but mixed with it was a puckishness which enchanted everyone and disarmed his opponents.
Iain Macleod was a master of oratory, respected and enjoyed as much outside this House as within. Those who were present on that occasion will never forget the way in which he made the speech which led to him being made Minister of Health by Sir Winston Churchill, the then Prime Minister.
With all his gifts, for me and I think for most of us it is his tremendous courage which stands out at this time, courage which he showed in his personal life and which he carried through into his public positions. None of us will forget his outstanding record as Colonial Secretary, both in the implementation of his policies and in expounding, in a series of brilliant and persuasive speeches, the principles which underlay them.
Those who disagreed with him no less than those who supported him respected the qualities which all of us recognised lay in him. Looking back, I think it was really the Ministry of Labour which in office was his real love. Constantly he spoke about it, both in public and in private.
Those who worked with him, as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, in Opposition, and who followed the characteristic combination of thoroughness, clarity and courtesy with which he led the Opposition in Finance Bill debates as well as in our discussions in the Shadow Cabinet, will know how well he had equipped himself to discharge the duties of Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a tragedy, not just for his colleagues and for the House of Commons, but for the whole country, that he should have died just as he assumed the office for which most of his work in recent years had been a preparation.
Above all, of course, it is a tragedy for his wife and family. The thoughts of all of us today are with them as we salute, here in the House of Commons, which he loved so dearly, the memory of a fine colleague, a skilled and devoted Parliamentarian, and a good and gallant man.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I wish to associate my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself with the tribute which the Prime Minister has so movingly paid to Iain Macleod.
The right hon. Gentleman was able to talk of him as a colleague; as a member of his party and Government. Although we on this side of the House knew him as a political adversary, our perspective is, perhaps, just as important as that of his political friends in forming a representative House of Commons tribute to a very great Member and colleague.
There are no political friends or political foes who can be sparing in their tributes to Iain Macleod as a debater or orator. He was among the best of our post-war political debaters in this House, and at the same time—something which is rare—he was a great speaker at conferences—where, of course. I have seen him only on television—and at public meetings. His wit could be biting and rough. He enjoyed the fight. But it was strife without malice, strife directed to the very clear end he had in view: the victory of his party and the cause for which he fought.
It is a mark of the very real tragedy that the Government as well as we on this side of the House have suffered that we shall never now be able to judge his capacity in one of the highest Offices of State to which he was recently appointed, although all of us will remember the courage of that last speech the week before last.
All the tributes that have so far been paid to Iain Macleod today, from his colleagues and friends and from his political adversaries, single out the one word "courage" as the hallmark of his political and personal life. It was a courage all of us saw day by day and all of us respected, although he never sought to trade on his disabilities. He asked no quarter, just as he gave none.
In his political philosophy he was essentially a rounded, composite character, and when the histories and biographies come to be written to replace these ephemeral tributes, they will record his political no less than his physical courage.
He showed his courage in his willingness to go out into the wilderness on an issue which he regarded as a principle—and when the choice of what is and what is not a principle has to be made, with all that that involves, it is a lonely choice that has to be taken.
He showed his courage, combined with his ineradicable liberalism, on such matters as race, human equality and in the significant contribution which he made to decolonisation and his work in bringing one ex-colony after another to nationhood and sovereignty.
Politics apart—and tragedies like this transcend politics—the House is today very much poorer for this loss, and everyone will join the right hon. Gentleman in


expressing our deepest sympathy to Mrs. Macleod and to their family.

Mr. Thorpe: One of the supreme qualities of the House of Commons is that when misfortune strikes a colleague the House, individually and collectively, reacts as a family, and its kindness, its understanding and its readiness to share in sorrows is something which is deeply comforting, and for which I myself have cause to be moved and grateful. It is my fervent hope that Eve Macleod will be similarly sustained and helped by the feelings of the House as she faces the agony of separation.
There were many issues on which I found myself in accord with Iain Macleod, and also many on which I was in disagreement, but for me he was one of the most courageous men in Parliament. We can say with Joseph Addison that he had
Unbounded courage and compassion joined".
He treated his own physical sufferings with total disregard—and it was not only in his speech on the Address. Those who sat near him on many occasions would see the sweat on his brow as the only indication of his suffering. But he made light of it. He was asked on television in Scotland before the election about his own physical disabilities, and with that caustic humour which gave so much pleasure in all quarters of the House he replied that his physical inability to look over his left shoulder was possibly helpful for a Tory politician.
But his courage was intellectual as well. As Colonial Secretary he encountered bitter hostility, but he said that one of the proudest dividends of his career was the trust and friendship which he had built up throughout the continent of Africa. In Opposition likewise, on Home Office reforms, on issues of race relations—and I think particularly of the Kenyan Asians—his conscience was his only guide and master.
He was a formidable debater and opponent. But he was also a very loyal friend. I think that I was most moved upon an occasion when one of his colleagues had been publicly disgraced. On arrival at London Airport Iain Macleod was asked for a comment and he said of that colleague,

He was my friend, he is my friend, and he remains my friend.
He died as he would have wished; he had regained one of the highest offices of the realm, I think that if he had been asked where he would wish to end his life he would probably have said, "No. 11, Downing Street", and then perhaps with his puckish eyebrows raised would have added, "Or next door—either will do." We can say, then, with Milton, that he had the
… courage never to submit or yield.
This afternoon our hearts go out to his equally courageous wife. Our sympathy goes out to her, to her family, and, indeed, to his party. I hope today that it will be of some comfort to his family to know that they are in our thoughts and prayers.

Mr. Turton: The three qualities I always associated with Iain Macleod were his brillance in debate, his compassion and his courage. Some of the older Members will remember his maiden speech on 14th March 20 years ago, when he rose, to most of the House completely unknown, and spoke on the Supplementary Estimates for health. In that one speech he made his mark in the House and in the Conservative Party, and this led to his becoming the Minister of Health when Sir Winston Churchill formed his Government.
I should like to recall to the House one passage near the end of that speech which I think illustrates the principles that dominated his life and his career. He said:
… I believe that the conception of the … duty … of the strong to help the weak, not only forms a nobler and juster basis for our social services, but is a basis that is infinitely better matched to the independence and the character of our countrymen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1950; Vol. 472, c. 964.]
That was a good illustration of his political thought, which made him one of the founders of the One Nation Group in our party.
Of his courage, as my right hon Friend the Prime Minister has said, there can be no better illustration than the debate just a fortnight ago today when he made that masterly exposition of the economy of the nation.
If I may end on a personal note, there were two occasions when my life


crossed with kin Macleod's. The first was at the time of the Battle of Alamein, when I left my division to take another appointment and Iain Macleod was my successor on the staff of 50th Division. Then in 1955, after he had had four years as Minister of Health, I was appointed his successor by Sir Anthony Eden. From those two periods in my life, I learnt the high regard in which he was held by those who served with him in the Army and in the Ministry of Health.
I should like on behalf of Members of the House to associate myself with the expressions of sympathy with his wife. His death is a tremendous loss to the House and to the nation.

Mr. Mackie: I am truly sorry to be grateful for this opportunity, in conjunction with my colleagues, to pay tribute to my political neighbour in the borough of Enfield, Iain Macleod. There is nothing we can add to the tributes that have already been paid by right hon. and hon. Members, except to reiterate our knowledge of his great courage, particularly in overcoming the disability which he had. If I may say so, this was greatly helped by a very courageous wife. She and her family have our deep sympathy.
I spoke to the Mayor of Enfield this morning, and she wished me to put on record in the House how much the London borough of Enfield mourns Iain Macleod, one of its M.P.s for 20 years and a man for whom the whole borough had the very highest respect. The borough, like the House, is the poorer by his tragic death.

Sir E. Brown: I am very grateful, Mr. Speaker, that you have enabled me to say just a few words this afternoon. I was a constituent of Iain Macleod's, and I received him many times in my constituency of Bath.
I wanted to join in a personal tribute this afternoon on behalf of all the Conservatives that he represented beyond the general public in his constituency, because I was involved with him in a number of public commitments in the borough of Enfield, such as the Conservative Clubs and similar bodies.
I knew Iain Macleod for some 20 years, and he was a mentor to me, in that his love for industrial relations and his pursuance

of peace with both the employers' and employees' sides of industry were an inspiration to me in the work I did on behalf of the Conservative Party.
I have sat for many years with his wife, Eve, as a magistrate on the Enfield Bench, and I should like to join my colleagues in paying tribute to her for her great courage and the inspiration that kept her husband going over these years.
May I say one final thing before we add his name to the roll of great people in this House. I do not ever think that Iain Macleod was just fractionally clever, I think he was clever, a clever man who has passed from us today.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I informed the House last Thursday that I thought it desirable in present circumstances that an announcement of the duration of the Summer Adjournment should be deferred for a few days. With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should now like to make this short business statement.
As the House knows, the Emergency Regulations which were approved yesterday have force for a maximum of one month. It may be necessary for the House to be recalled to consider further Regulations should the present emergency regrettably extend beyond that date or should other circumstances make recall essential. Subject to this contingency, I shall propose that, as previously announced, the House should adjourn on Friday until Tuesday, 27th October.
Mr. Speaker, may I also announce two additions to the business for Thursday of this week.
First, I understand that it would be acceptable to take the remaining stages of the Teaching Council (Scotland) Bill.
Secondly, following the exchanges yesterday, I am hoping to table a Motion today concerning a reference to the Privileges Committee of the question of the rights of any hon. Member who may be detained in one of Her Majesty's prisons. It is intended that this should be taken on Thursday evening—after the business already announced.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his speedy response to what he was asked yesterday about the Committee of Privileges and the problem of Members of Parliament in prison. If the House is to adjourn on Friday and we are to take an Adjournment Motion on Thursday for that purpose, clearly many of my hon. Friends will want to express their anxiety further about the dock strike and about the prospects of bringing it to a speedy end once the Court of Inquiry has reported. I understand the usual procedure in a debate of that kind is that it is always answered by the Leader of the House. While we are always glad to hear him, is he aware that many of us would like to have a statement from the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity before the House rises and before the debate to which I have referred so that hon. Members' anxieties can be allayed, if they are allayed, before the Court of Inquiry has reported?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course I will make representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I cannot say at this stage what he will feel able to do, but I certainly note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. As for replying to the debate, I understand that that is normally for me. I have no pride in these matters, and if anyone would like anyone else to do it I should naturally be very pleased.

Mr. Michael Foot: Can the Leader of the House say whether, in view of his statement, there is to be a debate on the Motion he is referring to the Committee of Privileges on the question of rights of Members of Parliament in prison? Can he say, in particular, whether, in view of the exchanges which took place yesterday and of the reference by the Home Secretary to the discussions that were to take place with the Ministers in Northern Ireland, there will be a statement from the Home Secretary before the debate upon the results of those conversations, since they affect the rights primarily of the hon. Member who is imprisoned in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Member has said. I think it only right for me to point out that in these matters we are of course considering two slightly

different questions. The Motion which I am referring to the Committee of Privileges concerns the rights of any hon. Member who may now or in future find himself detained in one of Her Majesty's prisons. This Motion I shall be tabling to refer to the Committee of Privileges. That, of course, is a different matter from that which the hon. Member raised about the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). I note what the hon. Member has said, and I will call it to the attention of the Home Secretary, but I must emphasise once again that I can give no commitment as to what my right hon. Friend may be able to say on that matter. I must also emphasise that it is quite separate from the Motion I am referring to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Foot: I fully understand, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that the two matters are not intimately connected, but it is a fact that the House would not be debating this matter at all if it were not that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) is in prison. Therefore, in view of the fact that the Home Secretary yesterday emphasised the talks that were to take place with Ministers in Northern Ireland and that many of us are extremely discomfited that the rights of a Member of Parliament of this House should be dependent on conversations with a representative of the Government of Northern Ireland, will not the right hon. Gentleman impress on his right hon. Friend the urgency and importance of a statement being made in this House before we have the debate on this subject, which is bound to influence the debate itself?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Member has said. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will of course also have heard it, and I shall be prepared to discuss what the hon. Member said with my right hon. Friend. I do not wish to go further than that at this stage.

Sir R. Cary: If the emergency conditions are likely to continue, could my right hon. Friend indicate the date in August when the House is likely to be recalled?

Mr. Whitelaw: The Emergency Regulations, should the emergency continue, expire at midnight on Saturday, 15th August. They would, therefore, have to be relaid before that date and it would be a matter for negotiations through the


usual channels as to exactly when the House should meet to take such Orders, but clearly it would be about that particular time.

Mr. John Mendelson: With reference to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition concerning a contribution to the debate by the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity and the demand raised by several hon. Members in the debate yesterday, could it not be so arranged that the Secretary of State should speak earlier in the debate on the Motion for the Adjournment and deal with the particular aspects concerning the Government's attitude to the possible attitude of the employers in still refusing to negotiate if the strike continues? That to many of my hon. Friends is the key point in the situation. Then at the end of the debate the Leader of the House could deal with the other matters concerned.

Mr. Whitelaw: I think I should say this to the hon. Member and to the House, and I think the House would feel that it is perfectly fair. I note the points which have been put forward and I respect the point of view put by the Leader of the Opposition that the House would like to have a statement from my right hon. Friend. We all know that in matters of delicacy in strikes of this nature the question remains as to what can be said, when it is advisable for it to be said, and when it should be said. I think the House appreciates this. Of course I shall speak to my right hon. Friend and consider the best method of meeting the requirements of the House, and indeed the nation as a whole, when we come to Thursday. I cannot go beyond that.

Mr. Barnett: In the debate yesterday the Minister of State seemed a little uncertain about price increases and the laying of Orders—whether it would be necessary to lay an Order before the House. The hon. Gentleman certainly did not make that clear in the debate. If it is necessary to lay an Order, how can this be done when the House is not sitting? Could the Leader of the House clarify what the Minister of State was not able to clarify yesterday?

Mr. Whitelaw: I suspected that I might be asked that question, and I have duly informed myself. Perhaps the House will appreciate it if I give the answer with

the appropriate reference. I am advised that an Order on prices made under the Regulations would not require further parliamentary action but such an Order would, of course, lapse with the Regulations if they themselves lapsed.

Mr. Orme: Can I press the Leader of the House on the question of the strike? The House has approved emergency powers that are being implemented by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the House will be recalled if the Emergency Regulations have to be renewed. We are concerned about what the Government will do to bring about negotiations when the report of the Pearson Committee is laid. Many of us think that it is wrong that we should go away from the House without having had the report from that Committee. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that we ought to remain in session until that report is laid?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that what the House would wish is that these matters can be discussed in Thursday's debate. This is the right place to discuss them. I have given the fullest assurance to the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make any statement which he considers appropriate if he feels that a statement will help the House at that stage. This is a reasonable position for me to adopt. Let us discuss the matter during Thursday's debate.

Mr. Driberg: On the question of the Motion which is to be referred to the Committee of Privileges, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say that the Motion which he is tabling will be drafted sufficiently widely for us to discuss questions pertaining to the particular case as well as the general principle and that it will not be restrictive in any way?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yesterday I undertook to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that I would ensure that any Motion I tabled had been considered with him and, I would very much hope, agreed with him. That is still my intention, and I hope to do that today.

Mr. William Hamilton: When will the Leader of the House give notice of


the rota of Ministers for questioning when we return in October? Will he consider putting on that rota the Lord Advocate—the Scottish Law Officer—who is now in the House and who does not appear on it, as distinct from the Attorney-General south of the Border? It is very important that we should have an answer to this question.

Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciated that this Government has been able to provide a Lord Advocate in the House of Commons, unlike the Government which the hon. Gentleman supported. I will certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman has said in these new circumstances.

Mr. Hamilton: What about the other part of the question?

Mr. Whitelaw: I was so keen on the little point that I had to make that I forgot the other point. I think I am right in saying that now I have proposed the date for the recall we shall put down the roster as soon as possible.

Mr. Rose: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify whether Thursday's debate will allow hon. Members to discuss all matters pertaining to any part of the United Kingdom, notwithstanding that some of those matters have been delegated to Ministers in a subsidiary Parliament? This is an important matter of principle. In view of Mr. Speaker's Ruling last week, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it will be possible to discuss matters which have purportedly

been delegated to the Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that I am beginning to learn sufficient about my job to know that it is extremely dangerous for me to state what would be in or out of order in any debate. That must be a matter for Mr. Speaker. I hope to table the Motion about the reference to the Committee of Privileges by agreement through the usual channels and with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). What is in order during that debate must depend on Mr. Speaker and not on me.

Mr. Onslow: When does my right hon. Friend now think that it will be possible for the statement about the Land Commission, which was to have been made this afternoon, to be made?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that it is known, at any rate through the usual channels, that it was felt desirable that this statement, which was to have been made today, should not be made today—[Interruption.]—for no policy reasons. We shall make it as soon as possible, certainly this week.

Mr. Skinner: When are discussions to take place on the proposed Coal Bill? Several thousand redundant miners over 55 or 60 are very worried as to whether their payments will run out before the Coal Bill is introduced.

Mr. Whitelaw: If they had read the Answer I gave during Questions last week, they would be perfectly clear as to the position.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that by Ballot we have arrived at an order of names of hon. Members and topics related to certain items in the Supplementary Estimates. I will follow that order, except that any hon. Member may join in one of the debates after all those who have won a place in the Ballot have been called upon to speak, but such an hon. Member must let the Chair know if he wishes to speak on the topic being discussed. It will not be in order for an hon. Member who catches Mr. Speaker's eye to talk about anything except the topic that is being discussed in the particular debate.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker. Can you give us any indication as to the lengths of these debates? Such information would help hon. Members lower down the list.

Mr. Speaker: If I could give the House any firm indication of the length of speeches which hon. Members are likely to make, I should be about the greatest Speaker in history. I can, however, help the hon. Gentleman a little. For the first debate I have four names, plus the Minister who is to reply. For the second debate I have 16 names, so it is likely that the debate on environmental pollution will take quite a time. The hon. Gentleman is the fourth debate down. For the third debate, I have only one name so far. I cannot guarantee that any hon. Gentleman ahead of him will emulate the hon. Gentleman, who is always brief when he makes a speech.

Orders of the Day — ARMED FORCES (PAY AND ALLOWANCES)

4.7 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: It is an honour to be called at the beginning of an important debate of this nature, particularly when one's speech is a maiden. I ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and humbly ask that you be not too strict in calling me to heel or to order as may be required during the proceedings.
I entered upon this subject with some trepidation, but with only a little: with some trepidation because, strictly speaking, it does not concern my constituency of Bradford, but yet without too much humility because I was sent to this honourable House by the people of Bradford to speak up on their behalf on matters of national importance. In the House there are few matters of such national importance as the voting of funds.
It is noteworthy that in these Supplementary Estimates that for defence is by far the largest of the individual items. Therefore, I gladly participate in this debate. I also participate gladly because for many years I was a regular officer under the Crown and also because I have worked in the aircraft manufacturing industry which does so much to support the efficiency and operational capacity of our Armed Forces.
Before I proceed, I should like as a new and green Member to pay tribute to the late right hon. Member for Enfield, West. I do so speaking as a Yorkshireman, because shortly before his death Iain Macleod was bereaved of his mother who lived quite near my constituency of Bradford. He was due to speak in our election campaign but was unable to be present. We fought on and we won, as he would have wished. Those of us who are new Members on the back benches took great inspiration from Iain Macleod's example, and, above all, from his physical courage.
In seeking to pay tribute to this great right hon. and, as the Prime Minister said, exceedingly gallant man, I turn to "Profiles in Courage", by J. F. Kennedy, who was himself throughout his public


service physically handicapped, in which he said, quoting Senator Beveridge,
A party can live only by growing; intolerance of ideas brings its death.… An organisation that depends on reproduction only for its vote, son taking the place of father, is not a political party but a Chinese Tong; not citizens brought together by thought and conscience, but a tribe held together by blood and privilege.
It was the example of his conscience and his courage, and his appeal to other interests beyond our party, which gave such inspiration to new Members, like myself, sitting behind the new Administration.
I must pay a tribute also to my predecessors who represented my part of the fine city of Bradford, which, as the House knows, is at the industrial heart of our proud nation. I pay tribute to Mr. Haseldine, a loyal scion of the Co-operative Movement if ever there was one, and a personal friend whom I came to respect, and, above all, I pay a tribute to Arthur Tiley, who, for 11 long years, held high the lamp of a proud conscience and a great magnanimity, which are, perhaps, features of the straightforward Yorkshire Conservatism which he served so well. Perhaps I may add that those Gentlemen opposite who did not return as Members to this Parliament owe some debt of gratitude to Mr. Tiley because, as we all know, he served the House well in the institution of the pension scheme.
There is much to say about the Supplementary Estimates. It may appear as a technical matter, but for those like myself—I think also of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell)—who served under the Crown under the last Administration, there is far more in them than first meets the eye.
The first noteworthy feature of the Supplementary Estimate now under discussion is that it is all devoted to pay and allowances. While all hon. and gallant Members would wish to see members of the Armed Forces properly and fairly remunerated, they must at the same time have some anxiety about the preponderance of this supplementary estimate going to the Regular forces as opposed to the Reserve, the auxiliaries and auxiliary formations.
The most serious limitation on strategy left to us by the right hon. Gentleman

the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has been his emphasis on Regular forces, whose pay we now have to consider. This is a serious deficiency, for it means that in a lengthy period of hostilities this country will have no capability of military expansion. In examining this Vote and seeking cause to justify it, I take into account not only the question of right and proper remuneration for officers and men in the Services but also our strategic posture and the question of judgment as to whether this exceedingly large sum does anything to enhance our defence credibility.
Reluctantly, though recognising the need of many gallant friends still serving in their respective Services, I have come to the conclusion that this particular Vote does nothing to provide either more equipment or a greater credibility of posture.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, these Supplementary Estimates deal with extra amounts related only to increased rates of pay and allowances for the forces. The hon. Gentleman must concentrate on that.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am glad that you brought me to heel, Mr. Speaker, as I expected you would. I was going on to bring to the attention of the House certain aspects of that pay award, in effect, the implementation of the recommendation of the Prices and Incomes Board on Forces Pay, which I feel are noteworthy and open to certain criticism.
During the election campaign, it was the boast of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East that the Defence Estimates were now lower than the Estimates for education. However, if one takes into account this Supplementary Estimate and also defence expenditure outside the strict defence budget, as recorded in the White Paper on projected Government expenditure of December last year, one finds that defence no longer takes a smaller proportion of national expenditure than education. This is a significant fact in our examination of these Supplementary Estimates, for it was upon that boast of the right hon. Gentleman that hon. Members opposite, for some reason, were so proud to base much of their campaign.
We must take into account, furthermore, the intention or purpose behind


the extra pay which we are asked to vote. It has several aspects. The first, a laudable one, is to try to do away with the differentiation which has existed between single men in the armed forces and their married counterparts. Lord Montgomery and others would proclaim that we need a preponderance of unmarried Servicemen. In so far as this Supplementary Estimate covering extra pay represents an attraction to bring them in, I would welcome it, but it means that more senior officers and men in the forces do not receive as commensurate a return as their more junior comrades in arms.
Second, there is the question of the X factor, a rather mysterious feature introduced to try to mitigate some of the more unpleasant consequences of entering military service. This is a hard estimate to make. It can, I believe, make up to a 5 per cent. increase, but it is difficult to comprehend the full stresses and strains of military life, and I regard it as an unsatisfactory exercise to try to make up for them in this way. I should hope that the nature of military service itself rather than the extra pay award covered by the Supplementary Estimate would be an inducement to greater recruiting.
It was clear when the right hon. Member for Leeds, East announced the forthcoming increase on 25th February this year that he did so as an aid to recruiting. I question whether the mere awarding of an 18 per cent. pay increase which the Vote would afford is adequate to improve recruiting, which, particularly in the Army, is greatly deficient.
I suggest, as the defence correspondent of The Times and others, including myself, have proposed in other places, that we could produce a more cost-effective pattern of defence by relying more on volunteer reservists and auxiliaries, that is, on those who at present, as we see from the Supplementary Estimate, account for such a small proportion of our defence burden. As the commander of the Second Allied Tactical Air Force in Germany, Air Marshall Foxley Norris wrote in the Royal Air Forces Quarterly,
It is a fact of life that what fundamentally costs money in the Services is the Service man".
With a stagnant economy, if defence expenditure is to be fixed as a certain proportion of gross national product,

while weapon costs escalate, and while we may try to keep up with the industrial Jones's, we must at the same time, pari passu, diminish our equipment procurement programmes. This is an exceedingly serious matter. It means that our capacity is reduced because the only way in which we can make up for having fewer men is by equipping the forces more efficiently.
This is a measure which should have the support of the House for the sake of the Armed Services on whom we rely, but we should have reservations about it. I hope that the Government will also seriously consider an increase in Reserves for the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force as well as for the Army on whom we equally depend.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that these debates are rather narrow. I intervene as little as I can.

4.21 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: It is my privilege to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) on his excellent maiden speech. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will look forward to hearing him speak in future.
Our debate today is overshadowed by the tragedy of the death of our friend, Iain Macleod. To those of us on the back benches he was always someone to whom we could turn, however humble we might be, for good advice. No one was too small for him to talk to. He was one of the most approachable Members of the House.
I understand that even in this society there are no second-hand maiden speeches and, although I speak after an absence of six years from the House, I hope that I shall have your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words about the constituency which I have the honour to represent in the new Parliament.
Windsor is a garrison town in which part of the Household Cavalry, to which I belonged, is stationed. Windsor Castle is the oldest royal residence which has remained in continuous occupation since the Middle Ages. King John sallied forth from there to sign, with his barons, Magna Carta. The Royal Borough of New Windsor was given its Charter in 1277 and today it is the only Royal Borough in which the Sovereign resides.


Maidenhead, a large and prosperous town, received, not one Charter, but three Charters—the first in 1582. We have two racecourses, Royal Ascot and Windsor, but happily there are many thousands of acres in the area which remain in agricultural use and form part of the delightful countryside. We have motorways and factories, but the one thing on which we can congratulate ourselves is that with this historic background we are able to move with the times and to deal with events as they are today.
My predecessor, Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe, who fought in a by-election in 1942 and was returned to the House during the war, went back to the Rifle Brigade and served throughout the war. One of his great hopes was that his regiment would be preserved. His knowledge and experience in the House were revered and frequently sought by everybody and he had the confidence and affection of his constituents.
There is one aspect of the career of Sir Charles which I shall never be able to emulate. He represented this House and another place as captain of the Lords and Commons cricket team. His cricketing experience was much in demand in my division, and if he played for Maidenhead in one year he always made a point of playing for Windsor the next year. On one occasion he made a century, but I am not prepared to say for which side he was playing.
This debate is very narrowly confined and, as a result of the timing of the General Election, it is restricted to the Supplementary Estimates, Class 7, Votes 1, 2 and 3, which represent the money required to implement the recommendation of the Prices and Incomes Board on the Pay and Remuneration of the Forces. Had my right hon. Friend been in power at the time he might well have decided not to adopt this procedure but to rely upon recommendations by the Army Council. Nevertheless, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West, I am not entirely satisfied that the amounts appropriated are sufficient. I hope that we shall have my right hon. Friend's assurance that the payment and deployment of the Armed Forces will be reviewed in due course.
The new system changes the formula for payment and places more emphasis on

the civilian methods of pay and remuneration. The apparent rises in pay are in fact less than they would be if true facts are taken into consideration. What the Army makes on the pay swings it loses on the income tax roundabouts. My criticism of the Estimates is the two-tier phased operation for single men who will not receive the full benefits of the pay increases until 1971. The effect of giving only two-thirds of the increase up to 1971 to the single soldier must hit recruiting because a young man, when he joins the Army, is far more interested in his immediate pay. His attitude changes during the period of service. I cannot see that there was any justification, except for the difficulty of introducing new legislating, for holding back one-third of the increase.
In a modern society, there will always be a limited number of people prepared to join the Armed Forces. But pay is not the only inducement which makes people want to join the Services as a profession. Conditions also affect their decision. In the last six years many of us who have been in contact with the Armed Forces have heard it said over and over again, "I am not staying in the Army because there is no security". This lack of security has been occasioned by the amalgamation of regiments and the reduction of the forces. Many men and officers have no future to which they can look forward. It is no good offering them golden or tin bowlers at an age when they are not able to get a proper wage in the outside world. What the serviceman wants is security with adequate compensation at the end of his service.
There is provision for married quarters in the Supplementary Estimates. This is an extremely important part of the inducement to soldiers to join the Forces, and it should not be neglected.
The Estimates provide for an increase in the pensions of Servicemen. The time has come—and I have given my hon. Friend notice that I would raise this point—to consider the possibility of basing pensions on a system of parity. There can be no logic in giving a smaller pension to a man who lost an eye during the Battle of the Somme than to a person who sustained a similar injury at Dunkirk. They have given equal service to their country and they should be given the same pension. I am aware that


this raises the possibility of having to increase public service pensions, but what the Forces need is a reasonable security both during their service and when they retire at the end of it.
I am convinced that, however good our recruiting programme may be, we shall always need a reserve and territorial force. This point was well brought out in the wonderful maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Major-General Jack d'A vigdor-Goldsmid).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying beyond the limitations of the debate, which is drawn extremely tightly.

Dr. Glyn: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will say only that we must have first-line reserve forces capable of supplementing the Regular Army, particularly in the category of those who may be called out without proclamation. I am sorry that the Supplementary Estimates have insufficient provision for the enlargement of that part of our forces.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Only rates of pay are relevant to the debate.

Dr. Glyn: The rates of pay for the Territorial Army and other reserve forces may be insufficient to attract enough recruits.
Although the debate is narrowly drawn, it covers rates of pay for Servicemen in all theatres. My right hon. Friend will have to reconsider the whole deployment of forces, because that in itself will affect the Supplementary Estimates. For instance, if we are able to reduce the number of troops in the Far East, as I understand we are, this will affect the amount of money in the Supplementary Estimates, because it will reduce the amount necessary. I should have thought that it was a small insurance premium to pay for the defence of our visible and invisible assets in the Far East.
The Supplementary Estimates would be subject to review if it were thought that we could reach an agreement with our Commonwealth allies, so that we had a multi-nation force in the Far East. This would alter the whole nature of the Supplementary Estimates. To what

extent would they be altered if we were able to get an agreement of that kind?
We must remind ourselves that all the Defence Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, will have to be reconsidered in the light of changes now coming about, and the possible reorientation of Russian defence policy resulting from the development of atomic weapons by China in the province of Sinkiang. We have to attune our Regular forces and our defences to possible changes of allies by the Russians which they may find necessary as the result of the development of atomic weapons in Sinkiang. We must also see that our reserve forces are sufficient to meet any emergency which may arise. These are the things necessary to preserve the morale of our Forces. They are necessary if we are to remain a great Power with a rôle to play in the future.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: This is a sad occasion and I join with other hon. and right hon. Members in tributes to Iain Macleod, who ws a great friend to all of us. I will say no more, because everything that needs to be said has already been said.
I take the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Dr. Glyn) on his return to the House and to say with how much pleasure I listened to his speech. I hope that we shall be having the benefit of his advice on matters like this in future. May I also say how much I enjoyed listening to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West. (Mr Wilkinson). It was very relevant to the problems undoubtedly facing the Services. I hope that we shall hear much more from my hon. Friend about these matters in the months ahead.
This is a difficult debate to conduct, because it is so tightly drawn, but this is the first time in this Parliament that we have had an opportunity to discuss the new pay codes and the new pay system introduced by the Labour Government in April. This is the first time that we have had an opportunity to assess this radical change in the system of paying the Armed Forces. The system affects the Forces at home, in Germany, the Middle East and the Far East. This is our opportunity to see whether the new


system is satisfactory and whether the men and women receiving the new rates of pay like the new system and whether it is having a satisfactory effect on recruiting. I hope that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity to tell us what has been its effect in the short time since April.
I do not want to introduce a discordant note so soon in the debate, but I have had the greatest difficulty getting a pay warrant to find out exactly what is included in the Supplementary Estimates which cover the new pay codes. The new warrant came into operation on 1st April. The Library of the House of Commons does not have a copy and I understand from telephone communication with the Ministry of Defence that the new pay warrants have not yet even been printed. All that was provided to me at midday was a letter which the Ministry said had gone out to commands and which incorporated the pay codes.
This is entirely unsatisfactory. It is excessively difficult from this kind of document, which arrives at so late a stage, to work out exactly what the rates are. I do not blame my hon. Friend who, poor chap, has been in office only a few weeks. I hope that he will look into the matter and put this right as soon as he can. If it is difficult for a Member of Parliament, as I contend it is, to check exactly whether the pay codes are the same as was recommended by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, it must be a superhuman task for the serving soldier, sailor or airman.
This state of affairs will cause dissatisfaction if it is allowed to continue for too long. When I was serving, I found that it was a difficulty, a mystery, to see how one arrived at one's net pay at the end of the week. This caused dissatisfaction and there was invariably controversy about whether one had been paid too little. This is a complicated code and the situation will be aggravated if it is difficult to get hold of the necessary documents.
The document is the whole basis of what we are discussing, for we must consider how the rates are affecting the general position. I applied to Mr. Speaker to discuss the Middle East and the Far East particularly in relation to the effect

of the new pay codes in those areas. As the House knows, pay in the Middle East and the Far East is exactly the same as at home, including the X factor of 5 per cent., although there are local overseas allowances which vary from district to district and according to the cost of living in which a man may be serving. This applies particularly to the Army and the Air Force although not so much to the Navy. Climates and terrain vary from the desert in the Gulf to the jungles of Borneo and Malaysia and the life in Hong Kong.
There is confusion over the profusion of documents I have acquired in manuscript form. Take as an example the Gulf. When men are out there, do they get hard-lying allowance for the work they do and the exercises they carry out training in the desert? Does the R.A.F. get the equivalent allowance when flying in that type of terrain? When battalions or companies move from Sharjah out into various exercise areas although they are not on proper exercises, are they given the hard-lying allowance?
It will be noticed that there is confusion over what is known as the hard-lying allowance. The old definition has been removed and a new definition substituted. Can my hon. Friend say whether this is working well and what are the conditions under which it is paid? How much of it is included in these Estimates? Does that local allowance vary depending upon the theatre, the type and kind of work that has been done as well as the cost of living? From my own knowledge in the Gulf, Sharjah, Bahrein and Barami, the conditions of our Servicemen when in camp are not too bad, although the heat is intolerable. The Services have gone to great lengths to ameliorate the conditions as much as possible, but I suggest that local allowances do not entirely make up for the very difficult conditions there.
There is the problem of those Service personnel not allowed to take out their wives and families, particularly in the Gulf. As a result the pay and allowances they get are augmented. Presumably that is part of this Supplementary Estimate. Can my hon. Friend say whether it is sufficient or whether hardship is caused? It is arguable either way whether the new pay codes do not cause


a certain amount of hardship to men sent out unaccompanied for nine months, as is the serving soldier in the Gulf, and whether he is penalised, as it is possible to say that he is, by the fact that he is not getting as much as he was under previous codes.
I have had difficulty in understanding exactly what the overseas allowances are, for example, in Bahrein and the Trucial States. The Ministry has kindly sent me the papers concerned and these are directly relevant because they are mentioned in the Supplementary Estimates. I have three different lots, as far as I can make out coming into effect on 1st April, which seems very appropriate. Each and every one has a different rate of overseas local allowance for the same place. The first, dated 6th July, gives for a lieutenant-commander, captain or squadron leader and below, 24s. 6d. a day. Another which also comes into effect on 1st April, dated 26th May and for the same type of rank, is 28s. 5d. Then there is the third which makes the confusion even worse. It is a large piece of paper which says that for a lieutenant-commander and below, a major and below, a squadron-leader and below, the rate will be 9s.
I am certain that I am being foolish in trying to understand the interpretations of these three documents all purporting to appertain to the same type of officer. For the purposes of comparison with the other ranks, a leading seaman and below or a corporal and below receives 25s. 11d. on one document, 21s. 10d. on the next, and in the large document it is 10s. 3d. It would help a lot if my hon. Friend could clarify this situation. Certainly it will help the serving soldiers.
Exactly the same thing applies to officers and other ranks serving in the Far East, South-East Asia, Hong Kong, Singapore or Borneo. I will not read out the same sort of figures, but the duplication exists. This kind of confusion causes difficulty for the men. What is the basis for these figures and what is the figure being used in the Supplementary Estimates? Taking the Army as an example and looking under heading B on page 8, we see that—
Overseas allowances: Due mainly to the incorporation into overseas allowances of the difference between overseas and U.K. rates

of ration allowance previously included in Class XII, 5, Sub-head F",
there is an increase from £930,000 to £2,180,000. Upon what basis is that worked? For the serving soldiers the difference between 10s. and 26s. is enormous.
Our policy has now changed. It changed since the new pay codes came into force. If we are not to withdraw completely from east of Suez, it is important that recruitment to the Armed Forces should be satisfactory if the moneys voted by the Supplementary Estimates are to fulfil their purpose. Many hon. and right hon. Members opposite have talked about cost-effectiveness, including the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), whom I am glad to see in his place. I shall listen with interest to what he has to say. Although it has been a very short period of time, I should like to know, if possible, what sort of return we are getting for the increased pay and allowances and whether these Estimates have been revised to take account of our new policies.
It is important, if we are to integrate our forces even to a limited extent with those of Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand and South-East Asia, that the pay and allowances of our men should be on comparable levels with those of our allies. I cannot sufficiently underline the importance of that. There should be no disparity between other troops and the British troops when they are serving in the Far East alongside Australians, New Zealanders, Malaysians and the force from Singapore. If there is, it should be redressed by local allowance.
We should be out in the Far East. When I was there I was amazed at the enthusiasm for the policies which we on this side of the House were putting forward for our Forces to remain out there, even in a more limited form than in the past. This will not work if there is a disparity between the national forces, and it is important to bear that in mind.
Could my hon. Friend say what are the new allowances and pay codes for the Jungle Warfare School in Malaysia? Is an extra allowance payable there? The House knows that the school is staffed by British officers and that the demonstration troops there are Gurkhas. It is an important school and was to become


the Commonwealth Jungle Warfare School. It will be interesting to know whether provision has been made to pay the personnel entirely from this Vote, or whether this is to be shared with our overseas partners in the defence forces which I hope will eventuate in South-East Asia.
There are, as I have said, Gurkhas serving in the Jungle Warfare School as well as Hong Kong. I see from the Supplementary Estimates that the pay code for the Gurkhas does not reach the same level as that for British troops. In the past we have made grave mistakes in regard to our Gurkha brothers. They have served us well and faithfully in the past and I suppose that we have paid them as much as we could. Many Gurkhas today are in retirement having gone back to Nepal. Many of them are living in great penury.
The House, and particularly you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know that an appeal is being made in this country on behalf of these retired Gurkhas and their welfare. They are wonderful people who have served us loyally and magnificently over the years. It would be a great tragedy if we did not make absolutely certain by adjusting the pay codes that any serving Gurkha on completion of his service is able to return home with sufficient money to live a reasonable and decent life in the country of his birth for the rest of his days. My hon. Friend will never be forgiven if Gurkhas who have to be retired prematurely are not given sufficient money to be able to return to their homes and to live decently for the rest of their lives. We must not make the same mistake twice.
I hope that the new pay codes will be satisfactory. I believe they are. But I am worried about the overseas allowances, which in many cases are insufficient. The variations are not right and they must be looked at again by the new Government. I am sure they will be looked at again. I appeal to the Government to put the codes in a simplified form so that ordinary men and women who are serving in the Forces will understand them. If they are put in an easily understood form, that will achieve an enormous amount. I believe that with the new pay codes recruitment to the forces will be stimulated and that such

service will have a greater appeal to our young men. If this is to happen, they must be treated properly, and must be seen to be treated properly.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: I begin by apologising to the House for the fact that I was not present at the beginning of the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) for preserving my position in the debate and giving me the opportunity to take part.
This is the first opportunity I have had of welcoming the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Gilmour) on his appointment as Under-Secretary of State with responsibilities for the Army. As his immediate predecessor, I can tell him that he will find it an extremely enjoyable position to occupy. He will discover that the job is testing but rewarding. Remembering some of the things that were said before and during the election, I should like to make it clear that we on this side of the House will watch him and the other Ministers in his Department extremely closely. So far as the hon. Gentleman personally is concerned, however, I wish him well.
This debate is in a somewhat unusual form, no doubt caused primarily by the fact that there was a June election. If the election had not intervened, we should not have had two Consolidated Fund Bills in the summer part of the annual cycle. This has meant that so far as they affect the Army the Consolidated Fund Bill and the Class XII Votes inevitably reflect assumptions in manpower and planning which were laid down by the previous Government and inherited by the present Government. If there are to be any drastic changes in Government policy on the Armed Forces from that of the previous Administration affecting pay and allowances to 31st March, 1971, and involving additional expenditure, I assume that there will have to be yet another Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill—or even the extraordinary procedure, which I gather has not been invoked for a very long time, known as excess grant. If we have to have an excess grant, however, I can promise the Government that we shall view it with a great deal of concern.
Since these Supplementary Estimates represent manpower and planning


assumptions inherited from the previous Administration, this debate poses more fundamental questions than would normally be raised on these occasions. Therefore, I hope the hon. Gentleman will be able to give some answers on these matters at the end of the debate.
We are today being asked to vote a Supplementary Estimate for the Army which amounts to no less than £53,350,000. This is to take account of increased pay and allowances of the Army, the Regular Army Reserves, the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve, the Ulster Defence Regiment and Cadet Forces to 31st March, 1971. The figure is, of course, calculated on the basis that the proposed run-down planned by the previous Government is to continue.
There are, however, three immediate areas of Government intention—so far as we can glean intentions from what the Government have said both before and during the General Election—which might have a profound effect on the Supplementary Estimates. The first involves their intentions about the future of the run-down and how this may affect the Estimates. Secondly, it involves their policy on the size, shape and nature of the reserves and its effect on these amounts. Thirdly, there is the effect of the Government's east of Suez policy on the sums included in these Supplementary Estimates.
I wish therefore to deal first with the effect of the Government's change of intention on the inherited policy of the rundown. Last week I asked the Under-Secretary of State three questions which related particularly to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. The first question I asked was whether he would make a statement on the future of this regiment. I received the forthcoming answer that the planned rundown of the Army was being reviewed. He did not tell us any more than we knew already.
I then asked the hon. Gentleman two further questions which may be of some interest to the House. I asked upon what date the reduction parade of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders was due to take place. The answer I received was:
Some months ago it was arranged that the disbandment parade of the 1st Battalion … would take place at Stirling on 30th

November, 1970."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 257.]
Then I asked, thirdly, how many of the officers, N.C.O.s and men at present serving in the 1st Battalion had been informed of the regiments in which they are to serve after reduction of the regiment, specifying the regiments concerned. The answer I received was that no less than 162 of the non-commissioned officers and no less than 265 soldiers of the 1st Battalion had already been informed of postings to battalions of the Scottish Division.
If the assumptions upon which these Estimates are based are those of the previous Administration, it must follow that the proposed rundown is to continue and that the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders are not to be reprieved. If I am wrong about that, it is high time that the Government made a statement so that at least the Argylls will know their position before the House goes into recess. I have seen recently a rather coy paragraph in one of the popular dailies that a statement on the rundown and the future of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders is to be made to the House before the end of this week. If that is so, those hon. Members on this side of the House who are interested in the matter will look forward to it with interest. However, if the result of the review is that the Argylls are to be converted into a TAVR cadre, then this is not what was expected. I do not believe that the 1½ million people who have signed a petition to save the Argylls meant by that that they wanted to save the eight men of the Argyll and Sutherland cadre of the Scottish Division of the TAVR. My right hon. Friend recently categorised this as five men and a dog. It may rather be eight men and part of a drill hall. I do not know. But, if that is the proposal, it is important that the matter be cleared up at an early stage.
If the battalion is to be reprieved when other battalions, are not to be, some of them perhaps of greater seniority than that regiment, we on this side of the House will view that decision with a great deal of concern. It would be very wrong for the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders to be treated differently from, say, the Durham Light Infantry merely because an effective and nationwide propaganda campaign had been organised and an hon.


Member was elected to this House on the basis of a claim which has turned out to be not the policy of the Government. If, however, I am wrong about the Government's intentions, no doubt we shall be told today.
The second matter on manpower which might affect the Supplementary Estimates, in view of the fact that they are for pay and allowances to 31st March, 1971, is the Government's intentions on the size, shape and nature of the Reserves. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) is present. He is one of the co-authors of a pamphlet produced, I gather, with the approval of the Conservative Party Central Office and adopted as Conservative Party policy. It provided for a dramatic increase in the size of the Reserve Army. Since we are being asked to approve an Estimate of no less than £53,350,000 for the pay and allowances of the Army, I hope that we shall be told how much extra will have to be provided in the next Supplementary Estimate if the Reserve policy which the party opposite put forward when in opposition is to be put into effect as Government policy.
The third matter is the whole complex of issues concerned with the policy east of Suez. At the moment, whenever the Government are asked for more information on their policy east of Suez they say merely that they are consulting. It was my impression before the General Election that the party opposite had already done a great deal of its consulting. We were told that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite came in with firm plans on the rundown, with firm and definite proposals on the Reserves, which the hon. Member for Beckenham had published, and firm proposals on their east of Suez policy. At one stage, there were certain well placed leaks in the Press on the nature of the force which the Conservative Party thought appropriate for use in the Far East in the early and mid-1970's. Understandably, the reticence of office have modified some of the original enthusiasm of the party opposite for that concept. But again, since it will clearly have an effect on the pay and allowances of the Army between now and 31st March, 1971, I hope that we shall be told something of the Government's thoughts on it.
Moreover, since yesterday, it has become fashionable for Government spokesmen to tell us not what the Government have decided but what their intention is. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will feel it appropriate today to follow the example of his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary yesterday, and tell us what are the Government's intentions, adding, however, that they are still liable to be influenced—

Dr. Glyn: The hon. Gentleman was not present at the time, but some of us sought to raise this problem, only to be told that, owing to the narrowness of the debate, we were out of order. We all wanted to discuss our forces east of Suez, N.A.T.O. and the rest of it, but we were called to order and not allowed to discuss these matters since they did not come within the confines of these limited Estimates.

Mr. Richard: It is not for me to comment on decisions from the Chair about how wide the debate should be. All that I am seeking is an early expression of the Government's intentions east of Suez since they will clearly have an effect on the validity of this Supplementary Estimate. If it is worth the paper on which it is written and is meant to be a statement of the extra sum required by the Army for pay and allowances to 31st March, 1971, that must be on the basis of the assumptions which the Government inherited. If those assumptions have changed, this document is meaningless. If we are asked to approve it, it is important that we realise what it is.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There appears to be some confusion about the Chair's Rulings. I wonder whether you can clarify the position so that the debate may continue. Are we confined only to pay and allowances as they appear in the Supplementary Estimate, as Mr. Speaker and you have ruled, or can we discuss manpower problems, as the hon. Gentleman is attempting to do at the moment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I think that it is clear that we must adhere to matters affecting pay and allowances. The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) is straying


a little wide of them. Perhaps he will be good enough to keep strictly to the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Richard: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In my own defence, perhaps I might say that, when I put in my name for the ballot for this debate, I approached the Table and was given to understand that, although the debate would have to be related to the Supplementary Estimates and, necessarily, would be a narrow debate, in considering the validity of this document, in which we are asked to vote £53,350,000 for the pay and allowances of the Army to 31st March, 1971, it would clearly be relevant to ask what Army, what size it is to be, and if it is to be bigger than that on which the Supplementary Estimate was based, then the Estimate is incomplete.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is exactly what is out of order. It has been ruled by my predecessors in the Chair that any debate on a Supplementary Estimate, which is very small compared with the original Estimate, must be a very narrow one.

Mr. Richard: I am obliged for that Ruling.
I was trying to indicate the three spheres of Government intention which affect these estimates. They are the future of the rundown; the size, shape and nature of the reserves; and the east of Suez policy of the Government. I hope that, without straying further from the path of order than perhaps I have in the last five minutes, the Minister may be allowed to reveal, if only partially, tentatively and perhaps, somewhat coyly, some part of the Government's intentions in these regards.
I should now like to make one or two remarks on the military salary and the problems raised by it. We are fortunate in having this debate today, unusual though it is, because it gives the Minister an opportunity of giving an up-to-date progress report on the way that the introduction of the military salary is going. However, I give him fair warning that we will watch very carefully indeed the way that the Government deal with the whole concept of the introduction of the military salary.
As the introduction of the military salary represented a major break-through in the national approach to Armed Forces pay—indeed, it is probably the biggest break-through since the war—it is perhaps worth reminding the House of the three main concepts which made up this policy.
When I was a Minister in the previous Administration I had occasion to visit the officers' mess of a regiment, which had better be nameless, and there talked to a senior officer, who had certainly better be nameless. He perhaps unconsciously expressed the view that the introduction of the military salary early in 1970 was the best thing that had happened to the Armed Forces since 1948. I think that he may have been unaware of the political overtones of what he was saying. But it is nevertheless true that the introduction of the military salary this year was a major step in relating Armed Forces pay and allowances to those of their civilian counter-parts.
Three main principles are involved in this concept. First, that broadly there should be comparability between military and civilian salaries; secondly that there should be equalisation of pay between the single and the married solider; and, thirdly, that there should be a regular review. Those are the three main principles which underlay the previous Administration's approach to the military salary.
On the first, comparability with civilian salaries, some anomalies showed very early on. For example, it became clear fairly early that the banding of clerks may have been wrong. We had the kind of anomaly where, in the same office with two sergeants doing the same job, one being a Pay Corps sergeant and the other an infantry sergeant, the Pay Corps sergeant was being paid less than his infantry counterpart. I know that this was a reversal of the previous position when the infantry complained so bitterly that they lagged behind specialists, but it does seem to be a major anomaly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that that is in the process of being corrected, although I notice that one hon. Gentleman opposite disagrees with me.
We expected anomalies to be thrown up in the early stages of the introduction


of such a radically new concept. I believe, however, that there was some substance in the complaints made to me when I was a Minister. It was an anomaly which I would have hoped to correct either in the course of this year or in the course of a review of the anomalies which would take place during the first 12 months after the introduction of the military salary.
The second of the three principles is that of equalisation of pay between the single and the married soldier. Will the Minister give us a clear and unequivocal assurance—I hope that he will, because it is an assurance which the Labour Government gave—that full equalisation of the pay of single and married men will take place next year as had been planned? We would be extremely unhappy if the staggering which we felt we had unfortunately to accept in this equalisation for a 12-months' period were to be further prolonged. If there is further staggering, we would regard it, as I am sure would hon. Gentlemen opposite, as a major breach of faith with the Servicemen.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: rose—

Mr. Richard: The hon. Gentleman has already made a speech, and I think that he will probably agree with me. I am asking him to help me to try to ensure that the Government are prepared to give as clear and unqualified an assurance in this respect as did the previous Administration.
There is further an anomaly concerning Servicewomen. I was never happy about the proposals for Servicewomen's pay, when the National Board for Prices and Incomes reported. Nor, indeed, was I happy when the military salary itself was introduced. This matter should be looked at again. It is anomalous that there is still not equal pay for equal work for Servicemen and women. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us that he is prepared to look at this matter sympathetically and urgently.
The third principle is that there should be a regular review. Once we accept the principle of comparability it is important that that principle is maintained. One of the most important parts of the introduction of the military salary was the concept of regular review to ensure that

comparability was being maintained and that service pay did not again fall behind that of civilian equivalents. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman for a clear assurance, that, whatever happens to the National Board for Prices and Incomes—a body which we hoped would play a considerable part in the system of regular reviews—the principle of regular reviews will be accepted by the present Administration and that they will take place by an appropriate body independent of the Ministry of Defence and of the Government? I hope that the hon. Gentleman can go a little further and say too that, whatever else the Government do regarding reductions in public expenditure, the plans which he has inherited concerning the military salary will not be affected.
Indeed, one important feature of the introduction of the military salary was the deliberate attempt by the Labour Government to take service pay out of the political arena by referring it to the National Board for Prices and Incomes, by waiting to see what that independent body produced, by accepting it and by introducing it, in the hope that it would no longer be necessary in future, as it had been in the past, for service pay to become a matter of political argument across the Floor of the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can assure us that the Government are prepared to accept that approach.
Finally, I should like to ask one or two questions about recruitment. It was hoped that the introduction of the military salary would improve recruitment figures. At the time that the Conservative Party took office there were already hopeful signs about recruitment. I should be interested to know whether the improvement in recruiting which seemed to be shown in the early part of the year has been maintained. It is very important—and may be one of the main differences between the two sides in future concerning defence our policy—that the manpower available to the Armed Forces should match the commitments which they are being called upon to undertake.
I give the Minister and the Government fair warning that if we arrive at a situation where additional commitments are being undertaken and recruitment figures have not improved to match


them, the opposition which they will receive from this side of the House will be sustained, bitter and, I believe, in the long run, successful.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: Hon. Members have been paying tribute to Mr. Iain Macleod, and it is appropriate that on the day of his death we should be debating Supplementary Estimates relating to the Armed Forces, because it was in the Armed Forces that he suffered the injury the marks of which he bore for the rest of his life with such gallantry, as all his friends in the House knew so well.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) on his maiden speech, and for concentrating, so far as he could, because of the rules of order, on the Reserve Forces. I follow the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) directly on this question of the Reserve Forces, because the Government's plans for expanding them will not be fully implemented in a matter of weeks, or even months. This is clearly a programme that will take a long time to introduce properly. I hope that in these Supplementary Estimates there is an element not only for maintaining the Reserve Forces at their present size, but for laying the foundations for a modest increase in them.
The hon. Member for Barons Court, I thought quite properly, asked whether these Supplementary Estimates contained provision for the possible reprieve of those infantry units which had been condemned by the previous Government, and I ask the same question. But the hon. Gentleman was, of course, asking the question in the hope that he would receive the reply that there would be no reprieve for them. I ask the question hoping that the reply will be that in these Supplementary Estimates provision is made for the continuation of those regiments.
The introduction of the military salary and the Supplementary Estimates are meant to encourage recruiting, but there can be no doubt that the abolition of famous regiments has a harmful effect upon recruiting, and may make Estimates of this size unnecessary. Recently I went into a recruiting office in my constituency and asked the recruiting sergeant where he expected to go on his next posting. "Oh", he said "I am leaving the Army.

I am in the Rifle Brigade, and if there is no room in the Army for the Rifle Brigade, there is no room in the Army for me". There can be no doubt that the abolition of certain famous regiments has a harmful effect on recruiting, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to announce this afternoon—or, if not this afternoon, in the near future—that these famous regiments are to be reprieved as a result of the Defence Review which is under way.
We all recognise that pay is the dominant factor in recruiting. I have had some reservations in the past about the whole concept of the military salary, but I congratulate the Ministry of Defence on the speed with which it has implemented the working out of the military salary concept which we see enshrined in these Supplementary Estimates. To give them their due, I congratulate, too, the hon. Member for Barons Court and his right hon. Friend who presided over the implementation of the military salary. The job was done with great speed. As the hon. Member for Baron's Court acknowledged, there are certain anomalies within that salary, and I hope that these Supplementary Estimates contain provisions for removing some of the rough edges in it.
Having praised the hon. Gentleman for having introduced the military salary so quickly, one must say that it has been introduced at the worst possible time for the Armed Forces, because to change a concept in the middle of a wages explosion of the kind which the present Government inherited is the worst possible moment at which to do it. One knows that there cannot be a review of the military salary for two years, and I hope that within those two years we shall not see any increase in the charges that are also part of the military salary concept.
The hon. Member for Barons Court talked a great deal about comparability, and one of the things that I regretted about the introduction of the military salary was that a full review of comparability with private industry was to be carried out only once every six years. We are in the middle of a technological explosion in industry. We are in the middle of a technological explosion in the Armed Forces. We are also in the middle of a period when wage and salary rates in much of industry are being not only


increased, but re-cast, and it seems to me that, given that state of affairs, six years is too long to wait for a thorough-going review. The reply which I remember getting in earlier days when I suggested that there should be an earlier review was that it was not possible, because one required the co-operation of private industry, and it would not want management experts and other people coming round to study the question of comparability more than once every six years. It seemed to me that that answer was wholly ingenuous. I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will consider a full review of comparability over four years rather than six years.
One aspect of the military salary that seems to have been handled unsatisfactorily is the question of the X factor. The X factor is the element of the military salary compounded of risk and the acceptance of discipline that separates the task of a soldier, sailor or airman from that of a civilian. The Prices and Incomes Board estimated that this X factor should be valued at 5 per cent., with a maximum of £200. That seemed to be a wholly unrealistic assessment of the burdens involved. Clearly, we cannot consider the X factor within the question of comparability. It would be best to say that we are going to deal with the X factor not by adding a wholly unrealistic 5 per cent. to the military salary but by way of a grant at the end of a Serviceman's career, when we can assess the amount of overseas service and the amount of service in dangerous and unpleasant stations that he may have had to meet.
It is by looking towards the payment of grants and, in some cases, quite substantial grants, that we shall deal with the problem in the future. The payment of future grants has two attractions. First, it is not immediately inflationary and, secondly, it does not have to be dealt with before cost, and does not have to be met in Estimates for the current year, such as those we are dealing with at the moment.
These Supplementary Estimates are aimed to stimulate recruiting, but pay is not everything. One of the factors that has kept recruiting down in the last few years is the knowledge that the Socialist Government have put defence at the

bottom of their list of priorities. I congratulate my hon. Friend on coming to the Dispatch Box this afternoon. One of the best services that he can perform is to tell the country that the Armed Forces of the Crown are now given the proper priority and the respect that they deserve from the Government.

5.34 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Antony Lambton): We have had an interesting debate, marked by the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson). It is my wish to express the interest which the House showed in what he had to say. We look forward to hearing more from him in the future. He put his case very plainly. We realise the knowledge that he has of the subject, through his association with the pamphlet, Britain's Reserve Forces, on which he helped, collaborating with Mr. Douglas-Home, and he showed today that he has a grasp of the subject which will make him most welcome whenever he speaks in the House.
The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) made many points, some of which—as you pointed out in your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker—were a little wide of the point. It will therefore be impossible for me, following your Ruling, to answer them. I want to go through many of the points that have been made but following your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and not entering into a discussion of some of the great issues raised by the hon. Member.
First, there is no question whatsoever of restaging payments to the single Serviceman. One might wonder at the moment whether the original staging was necessary, and there is no intention of restaging at the moment. The hon. Member also raised the subject of women's pay. That is going forward by stages and I think that those stages will go on as planned.
As hon. Members will recall, the pay and allowances of the Armed Forces were made the subject of a standing reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes in November, 1967. The previous Government subsequently received the Board's reports and accepted its recommendations, the most important of which was that a military salary should


be introduced to take the place of the old system of rates of pay with special allowances for married men, and benefits in kind—free bed and board—for single men.
Another important recommendation was that job evaluation should be carried out to determine the relationship between different employments and different ranks within the Services and, moreover, to give an indication of levels of pay within civilian employment comparable in skill and responsibility to jobs in the Services. An X factor was also to be added to take account of the special conditions of Service life.
The new pay structure was introduced from 1st April, 1970, and was extremely well received by members of all three Services, particularly among the other ranks. Understandably, there were some aspects which were less well received. There was a general hope among Servicemen that the X factor—intended to take account of the hazards of Service life, such as exposure to danger and turbulence—would be introduced at a higher rate than was the case. However, the N.B.P.I. recommended that single men should be charged for neither food nor accommodation while at sea or in the field for two nights or more. As this represented a considerable cash concession in compensation for hardship it was taken into account in considering the size of the X factor payment which was included in the military salary.
This is also the opportunity for bringing up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins), who asked about specific cases concerning overseas allowances and those for hard lying. He particularly asked about the hard-lying allowances for lieutenant-commanders in Bahrein. This is a very complicated subject, the more so because the eligibility of personnel for hard lying money depends upon the type of vessel in which they are serving.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: It was not entirely that. I was talking about local overseas allowances, and I used the hard-lying allowance as a side reference. It is a question of the overseas allowance of lieutenant-commanders and below, majors and below, and squadron leaders and below.

Mr. Lambton: I was mentioning the particular case of this hard-lying allowance, which is dependent on the type of ship in which the officers are serving. Of course, the rates of local overseas allowance depend on the cost of living in the areas where they are paid, compared with that of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman would like it, I will write him a letter dealing further with these points, but these are the two reasons for the seeming discrepancy in the figures in this case.
There has also been some dissatisfaction with the new pay banding. This is understandable in that, in some instances, old-established relativities have been changed. For instance, under the old system, army clerks and combatant soldiers were in the same pay band, the lowest of three bands. Under the new system, combatant soldiers in the rank of corporal or above are in the higher pay band, the middle one, because job evaluation has shown that the skill and responsibility of their jobs merited higher pay than hitherto has been given.
Naturally, it takes some time for changes made to long-standing relativities to gain acceptance by all Servicemen, but it would have been impossible to produce a new and improved pay structure while retaining traditional but unjust and outmoded features of the old.
It is perhaps not entirely unexpected that certain other anomalies have come to light in the early days of the application of the new system. For this reason, machinery has been set up to keep the pay structure under review. A further job evaluation exercise is planned to evaluate certain jobs. The validity of particular pay bandings is also being kept under review. But we are able to take remedial action in the case of any inequities which emerge. It is clearly sensible, however, to allow the new pay code to operate for a reasonable time to enable firm evidence to be collated before making any changes in it.
I stress that, in general, the reaction of the Army to the pay review has been good. A soldier can now compare his pay precisely with that of his civilian counterpart and is perhaps more aware than before of the rewards open to him in the military field. He is also aware, of course, of wage awards made in industry and expects that his pay will be


regularly reviewed and kept in line with civilian jobs of similar size and importance.
The system of job evaluation to assess pay levels has been generally well received and great importance is attached to further studies now authorised to cover a wider range of rank levels. Certain studies of allowances, particularly those related to separation, disturbance and education, are being actively pursued.
Hon. Members also raised the question of parity of pensions and what would be the cost.

Mr. Richard: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the review procedure, he will remember that one of the points that I put to the Government was that they should say that they accepted the principle of biennial reviews by a competent independent body, even if the Prices and Incomes Board goes—independent of the Ministry of Defence and the Government. Can he help us on that?

Dr. Glyn: Can my hon. Friend deal with the whole question of parity of pensions—not only for the disabled but for all the Services? I gave notice of that question.

Mr. Lambton: The cost of giving parity with today's rates to all existing Armed Services pensioners would be about £21 million a year. We cannot ignore the position on other public service pensions, and the cost of parity for all public service pensions has been estimated at £100 million in the first year. The last Government and our Government have repeatedly said that, apart from the difficulties of principle and practical application, such a cost would be prohibitive.
On the question of the hon. Member for Barons Court, I will let him know at a later date if he wishes.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I am very sorry to press the hon. Member on this matter, and I would not do so were I not to fear that his answer this afternoon will cause a certain amount of disquiet among the Armed Forces. Let me remind him of what my hon. Friend said. He said that we were absolutely committed to a continual review of the level of forces' pay, not by the Ministry of Defence, not by

the Government, but by some objective body. I am sure that he would not want it to go out that that is not the case, and I am sure that he wants to give a more positive answer than he has given up to now.

Mr. Lambton: I can give a positive answer: it is our intention to keep the matter under review—

Mr. Hattersley: By whom?

Mr. Lambton: That is a matter which must be regarded later, but certainly the matter will be kept continually under review. There is no reason for the hon. Gentleman to look pessimistic over this. It is our intention to see that no member of any of the Services suffers detrimentally from any changes which we plan to make.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West was particularly worried about Gurkhas now leaving the Services. As he knows, recently a considerable addition has been made to their basic pay. Also when the Gurkhas are leaving the Forces on redundancy, they are at the moment in receipt of a lump sum, usually running at about £200, which goes some way towards stilling the doubts which my hon. Friend has. Of course I should like to stress how valuable has been the work done for us over the years and the help given us by the Gurkhas.
Effective action is being taken to streamline the administration of the military salary introduced on 1st April, 1970. This is a continuing process. Officers from the appropriate Army Department branches have visited units worldwide to gain first-hand knowledge of the administrative difficulties being encountered by unit and pay offices, and, as a result, some changed procedures will be introduced.
I expect that, in the near future, many of the outstanding difficulties and administrative problems will be removed. However, certain problems, which will require fundamental changes to the basic rules to achieve greater equity and administrative economy, remain to be resolved. These are being closely examined, but because of their nature, this will take some time.
I was asked what effect the introduction of the military salary has had on


recruitment for the Army. Hon. Members will appreciate that it is early yet to make a reasoned assessment. The new scales were introduced only on 1st April last, and not enough evidence has accumulated to allow their effects to be isolated from those of other factors which may be at work. All that can be said is that we hope that the effects will be beneficial for the Army and for the other two Services, as I think that both sides are agreed on the desirability of an increase in the numbers recruited by all three Services.
I have tried to cover many of the points raised, but I will not go into the other great issues involved owing to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which limited the debate to these matters.

Mr. Richard: I appreciate the difficulty in which the hon. Gentleman finds himself in, first, not being able to answer my questions, and, secondly, in not being the Minister who was originally to reply. We therefore fully understand his difficulties. However, even if he cannot say something about such great matters as the future of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, about which I spoke in some detail, can he at least say something about the rumours which have been circulating and reports which have appeared in the Press to the effect that a statement will be made this week on the future of the rundown of the Army, before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I cannot allow the Minister to make such a statement. He would be out of order in doing so.

Mr. Richard: Since you allowed me to ask the question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it seems absurd with respect not to allow the hon. Gentleman to reply to it.

Mr. Lambton: The question which the hon. Gentleman is posing, which I do not propose to answer, adds to the general uncertainty on this subject. All that the hon. Gentleman is trying to do is to make trouble on a subject about which the Government have said they will make a statement later. I shall not be making a statement today, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and, as far as I know, the statement on the other matter stands—that a statement will be made later. When it is made, the hon. Gentleman

will be able to comment as he likes, but this is not the occasion for such comments and it would not be proper for me to make a statement on this subject today.

Orders of the Day — ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: I am concerned about the work of the Royal Commission on the Environment, which has just started. I wish the Commission well in its work, but I must stress at the outset that however successful it may be, it rests with Ministers to implement its recommendations.
The Royal Commission should know and understand the vagaries of Ministers, good and less good, who handle these matters of environment. It is for this reason, to illustrate my point, that I return to a case which falls in this category.
Four days ago I spoke in the House of secret planning inquiries, and I have had a reply from the Government. Hon. Members may ask why I now raise the matter again, and the answer will emerge before I have proceeded far. My story begins with an appalling mistake by the Labour Administration and, due to the incidence of the election, it ends with no less a mistake from the Conservative Administration, who inherited it and who have not the eyes to see it.
Labour stumbled into this problem accidentally and carelessly and, having got in, they could not get out. They were saved by the course of events, but they escaped through no merit on their part. Then the Conservatives came to power, and they failed to see the danger. Indeed, they are now close to putting the boat on the rocks and I therefore have little relish in saying what I must say this evening.
I begin with the Labour Administration. Their part in this business is an inglorious one. If any hon. Member were present last Friday I make no apology for referring to some of the ground which I covered then, for this is necessary to retain the narrative.
In June, 1967, there was held a public inquiry in Salisbury. One of the interested parties was a company from Cornwall which employs 11,000 people and which


succeeded, all credit to it, in making a profit last year of £12 million. This company was appealling against a consent which had been refused to undertake mineral working. I sent a statement of my views to the inquiry, and it was read out. Had I known what was to happen, I would have gone there personally, although the House was sitting at the time.
It was not until two years later that I learned that a month before the inquiry the company had called at the Ministry. It was understandably concerned to preserve its commercial secrets, and it asked if part of the inquiry might be held in camera. Such a request and such a practice were without precedent and, not surprisingly, the Minister took legal advice. Alas, legal advice is not always good. If the Minister of Housing and Local Government of the day had remembered what Edmund Burke had said, it would have helped him:
It is not what a lawyer tells me what I may do, but what humanity, reason and justice tell me what I ought to do.
The lawyers that day stood truth on its head. Hon. Members were probably brought up to assume and believe that a public inquiry is an inquiry held in public. Not so, said the lawyers. A public inquiry, in their view, is an inquiry conducted by an inspector. It is for the inspector to decide whether it should be held in public or in private, was their view. Believe it or not, the Minister accepted this advice, and from that moment on Burke's humanity, reason and justice went out of the window.
Two years later, when the Labour Administration were questioned on this point—of what was their authority and under which Section of what Act in camera proceedings were allowed—Lord Kennet answered in another place to the effect that he could not quote chapter and Clause. Small wonder, for there was no Section, no Act, no chapter, and no Clause. The only defence that the Labour Government could offer was that there was, in their opinion, "no bar". In other words, they were free to do it, they claimed, and why should they not do so?
Thus, in this case the company was advised to seek the inspector's permission

on the day. Hon. Members may think that the Minister, having conceded this point, and having accepted this unique precedent, would think of warning Salisbury of what might happen, but hon. Members would be wrong. The Labour Administration later confirmed—this is all in the OFFICIAL REPORT—that it was the first time that in camera proceedings had ever taken place in Britain in a planning case.
Yet the Minister warned nobody, with the result that not merely did the company learn that it would be possible for its unique request to be granted, and not merely was the company able to go away and prepare for this eventuality, but, in addition, it ensured that the inspector was personally alerted.
On the appointed day the company travelled to Salisbury from Cornwall and the inspector travelled from London. The two met at the hearing, each knowing what was in store. Each knew that the other knew, yet not a word was said and not a hint was given. The inspector waited for his cue.
Meanwhile, my unsuspecting constituents knew nothing. Those who stood to lose most had prepared no defence and the Minister never thought to warn those who were most vulnerable. At the appropriate moment the company made its request. The inspector was not caught on the wrong foot, and he granted it. This was the minuet played between the Minister's inspector and the Queen's Counsel employed by the company. If my constituents had had warning, or if they had had the resources to employ a Q.C., things might have been different, but they had neither. It must be said in fairness that the company did better than the Minister. It made a telephone call, though what happened to that call, I do not know.
Thus, Britain's first secret planning inquiry was born—and what a noble birth! "At Salisbury, to English China Clays Ltd. and to the right hon. Anthony Greenwood, the birth of in camera". Sometimes we heave a sigh of relief that these things do not happen in England, but suddenly we find that they do, and if no objection is raised the incident is repeated, the exception becomes the practice, and our liberties are yet further


eroded. That is precisely what is happening today. Yes—under a Conservative Administration.
There are very few people in this country who understand chalk. I think that the main centres of study are the geological departments at Oxford, Cambridge and London Universities. No reference library on chalk would be complete without a work by Dr. Michael Hancock, of London University. It is he who, together with all but two of my constituents, was turned away from the secret proceedings, because the company objected to his presence. He took the train back to London, and with him went my constituents' sole chance of bringing geological evidence to rebut the claims made in secret.
It was this aspect that was fastened on to by Lord Brooke of Cumnor in another place. Dr. Hancock is fallible, like the rest of us, but he has run samples of the chalk under an electron scanning microscope, and he and many other leading geologists do not consider that this chalk is particularly unusual. A difference of view exists. We can take whichever side we like. The answer is that we do not know, that we cannot verify the matter.
My two constituents who did attend the secret proceedings are sworn to silence for life. They have no more knowledge of chalk matters than I have. They listened to a technical discourse and it was then suggested that the Minister and his technical advisers should study the claims made, and to this they agreed. It is pertinent to ask what alternative they had. If they understood nothing, they might just as well have not been there, and their presence was a meaningless gesture. There was an element of charade about it. Bound to silence as they were, they could never return to the outside world to discuss matters with a qualified person. They had to take the suggestion or leave it. They were in a corner from which there was only one exit. So there are my constituents, silent for life on this issue yet probably with a greater knowledge of a critical local problem than is available to me.
I could dilate at great length, though I will not do so as other hon. Members have other subjects to discuss, on the personal by-products of Britain's first secret planning inquiry. I suffer a small

but unique disability among hon. Members. I shall never know why a giant industrial complex has settled in my garden. I am told that 200 alternative sites were looked at first. The angel of death therefore hovered over the constituencies of a great many other hon. Members. It might have been Bexley, it might have been Huyton, it might have been any hon. Member's constituency. It just happened to touch down in Wiltshire.
The company has offered me its secrets, but of course the price is silence on my part.
This happened, and I said to myself, "What can you expect from a Labour Government? You always get dictation and injustice under Socialism". But then I said to myself, "Wilson can't last for ever."
Meanwhile, I fought the issue with the modest weapons available to a backbencher. The Parliamentary Commissioner gave a great deal of attention to it. His report is in the Vote Office. He did not find injustice or maladministration. He is a public servant of immense distinction and integrity, and I would never criticise him here. But since the Labour Government seized on his report to clothe their nakedness, I must say this: it is easier to check on maladministration where rules exist and are liable to be broken. Here there were no rules, no guidelines, no procedures, no precedents. As the Council on Tribunals, of which the Parliamentary Commissioner is a member, later wrote to me:
The main reason why the Council did not feel in a position to criticise the Ministry's handling of the matter was that they had in mind the absence of any settled rules of procedure.
The reason why the Labour Government got away with it was that the doubtful game into which they had stumbled had no rules. The Labour Government were fully entitled to shield themselves behind the report, but let us not forget the reasons for the absence of criticism.
The Parliamentary Commissioner is perfectly entitled to his opinion of what constitutes justice. Equally, I am entitled to mine. The great thing is that there is no need for a clash, because it is not his views and mine that matter. What matters is what the House thinks about these events, and in my judgment there is not a Member who would tolerate what happened in this case.
Some hon. Members have never heard of the Council on Tribunals. It is a small body with offices in Trafalgar Square which first came into the news in about 1958, when it inquired into another chalk case at Stansted in Essex. It has been very helpful. It realised that the situation was intolerable and that there must never be another inquiry such as that which took place in Salisbury.
When I referred the case to the Council it at once entered into talks with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The House was told that the discussions were taking place, and we could rely on the Council on Tribunals to insist on rules if it were thought necessary. The discussions have lasted for a year. That is an indication of the gravity of the issue.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Member keeps talking about intolerable injustice in having these proceedings in camera, but courts conducting some criminal cases sometimes go into camera and no one regards that as intolerable injustice if the occasion warrants it. The only question for the hon. Member is whether the occasion warranted it in relation to these facts and so far everyone who has considered this case thought it did. This could not be said to be an example of intolerable injustice.

Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to the hon. Member for intervening. I am, of course, aware that secret proceedings take place in the courts. He is equally aware that they have never taken place before in a planning inquiry. I am not the man to say that they should not take place, but I think that the procedures should be agreed how this should be done, and under what conditions, beforehand.
Meanwhile the company had moved in with a vengeance and bought up Wiltshire acres. It paid the highest price ever paid for Wiltshire farmland, an acre here and an acre there, ready to expand and extend. Then at last the General Election came. I think Salisbury exceeded the national swing. Salisbury people voted for a new style of Government. They voted for a Conservative Government whose Queen's Speech undertook to remedy past damage to the environment. They knew that Conservatives

never in history have tolerated in camera planning inquiries. They knew that we have no truck with that sort of thing, and that we believe in inquiries that are fair, open and impartial, and that such nightmares would not recur.
On polling day, 18th June, the Minister of Housing and Local Government wrote to tell me that there would be a planning inquiry in Salisbury on 28th July and that it was to consider extensions to the Dean Valley activity. I wrote to my right hon. Friend on his first day in office, 20th June. Needless to say I have warned my right hon. Friend that I intend to be critical this evening of his actions. He has had the courtesy to let me know that it was not possible for him to be present this evening.
On 20th June I sent him two letters. One was congratulatory and in it I asked whether an official letter which I was sending by the same post might have the attention of his Permanent Secretary because I believed that that was in our joint interest. In my official letter I asked him one question only. I said:
Will you postpone this inquiry until such time as it is possible for me to have a meeting either with yourself or the Parliamentary Secretary responsible?
I quote further one sentence from that official letter. I said to my right hon. Friend:
From your personal knowledge you would agree that I am not an unreasonable Member and equally you would accept from your own experience that I am not given to embarrassing my collagues. I am profoundly anxious that the new Administration should weigh this issue carefully before continuing down the slippery slope. Today the opportunity exists for a fresh look at the problem. If the opportunity is not taken there can only be regret further along the road.
My right hon. Friend replied on 6th July that there could be no postponement.
The company",
he wrote,
will look to have their applications dealt with with due expedition.
My suggestion of a meeting was not referred to. My right hon. Friend has always had great confidence and I envy him that, but this happens to be a case with which I have lived for more than three years, and I am beginning to learn something about it. My right hon. Friend would agree, although he thinks that my


views are nonsense, that I have sought to put these views to him day by day since he took on office as Minister.
I think it interesting that on two occasions last year I wrote to my right hon. Friend who was then the Shadow Minister suggesting that this might "blow up into something sizeable." That was my phrase. I should be the first to agree that the local problems of Puddleby-in-the-Marsh are not exciting. When he wrote to me on 6th July making no reference to my suggestion of a meeting I became uneasy. Here is a great company which has just come into my constituency, a company which by calling on the Minister beforehand helped to bring about Britain's first secret planning inquiry and a company which, now established, wishes to extend its activities into a massive industrial complex.
We do not know why it is there; we must take it on trust from the Government. Only the Minister knows. Now lying on the table are applications for it to extend. My right hon. Friend has instructed his inspector to attend at Salisbury's Guildhall next week. He sees no need to pause and to consider the implications of this. He believes that the case can happily be judged on its merits. He sees no particular difficulty. I ask myself, is it not possible that once again there could be an element of charade about it? Has it not occurred to my right hon. Friend that once a Minister becomes a party to secrets he also becomes a prisoner? Has the logic ever occurred to him that the Minister and the Minister alone can decide the merits of allowing that original activity to extend?
My constituents have been deeply wounded and insulted in the past. There is no hon. Member who would be prepared to sit down under such treatment. I ask myself whether my right hon. Friend is now not threatening to insult them again. The Labour Government got away with it. They were saved by the result of the General Election, and on polling day itself, such is the irony of events, they left what proves to be a trap for their successors. The Labour Government themselves did not deal with these applications, which have been lying on the Table since last year. Yet it was they who appointed the date 28th July.
In answer to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), I do not know whether secret planning inquiries should or should not take place, but I feel that this is a profound question. It could be that in this scientific age there is a case for them; I just do not know, but I do know that these things should take place only at the express wish of the House of Commons. What Parliament decides I accept. It should not just happen that because some commercial concern called one morning and talked to some civil servant from that meeting was born this highly unpleasant precedent.
I find this debate rather painful but I must complete the story. It remained to me to establish beyond all possible doubt that my right hon. Friend was still bent on following in the path of his predecessor. I tabled a simple Question. This is all in HANSARD. I asked my right hon. Friend whether the inquiry in Salisbury next week will be held in public. That was the crux of the matter—will the public inquiry be held in public? My right hon. Friend in his answer showed that he is still following the advice of the same advisers in his Department. He replied:
I have no present reason to believe that in camera proceedings will be sought."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 96.]
Then I asked him whether he would be able to give that assurance before the inquiry opened, and again he would not do so. He continued in broad daylight to sail toward the rocks.
Parliament is generous on these occasions. I drew lucky in the Ballot and on Friday I had the chance to pursue this matter further: I had the Adjournment debate. I gave it the title, "A Dangerous Planning Legacy". That title was yet another warning.
Having obtained the Adjournment, I asked for an appointment at the Department with my hon. Friend, to whom I am most grateful and who is here today. I went to his office and made clear at our meeting that there must be a postponement and a fresh look at the matter. No doubt my warning was passed to the Minister. It was a gentle and exploratory debate, as I intended it to be. It was the first Adjournment debate to which my hon. Friend had replied.


He did it with great distinction and sensitivity. Afterwards, I thanked him. He had at last clarified the Government's attitude for me.
The brief supplied to my hon. Friend for the debate was the same brief and the same phrases as were used by the previous Administration.
The voice is Jacob's voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau.
I noticed that in this brief there were just a few new phrases. One phrase which my hon. Friend used was:
I must emphasise that in camera proceedings are extremely rare and the Minister would not want to encourage anyone to apply for such hearings …".
I said to myself, "You bet they would not after what has happened". I liked the phrase "Extremely rare". If something has happened once and once only, I agree that it is certainly rare.
In the same brief, for which I excuse my hon. Friend absolutely personally, this same attempt to shore up the case was repeated a second time. My hon. Friend read:
The occasions when there is need for such procedures are, fortunately, rare …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1885–9]
Fortunately, indeed.
I had considered going to the inquiry in Salisbury next week, but the Minister has not been able to assure me that it will be held in public. He asks me to accept a situation unacceptable to any Member of the House. So I shall not now be going. There are no new safeguards since the last occasion. While there is risk of further insult to my constituents, whether from a Labour or a Conservative Administration, I will not be a party to it. Nor will the geologist of whom I spoke from London University; he, too, will stay behind.
What of my friends, the Council on Tribunals, now entering its second year of discussion—the people that we can reply upon to insist on rules, so we were told in the Chamber? My right hon. Friend presses ahead. I suggest that the Council has been kicked in the teeth. Its members can sing for their supper. Leave them to their dull procedural talks, talks which might have protected my constituents.
Time has not allowed me to table an all-party Motion to outlaw secret planning inquiries until the issue has first been openly and publicly investigated and recommendations made to the satisfaction of Parliament. Besides, this would be painful. I accept help from my hon. Friends but I do not relish help from the benches opposite. They it was who started this unpleasant business. There is not a backbencher prepared to tolerate secret proceedings conducted without advance warning and without adequate safeguards by my right hon. Friend's inspectors within their own constituencies. This final painful demonstration of tabling a Motion, therefore, is unnecessary.
Here we are. This all began with a stupid mistake in 1967. By the time the implications were realised it was too late. Then came the big defence operation, then the General Election. Finally, my right hon. Friend has failed to recognise the covering up that all this was. By this considered action he has shown himself to be deeply mistaken. Where this mistake will lead us I do not know, but I consider that my right hon. Friend has blundered badly in this painful matter.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debates through the night. The night is long but is not infinite.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: In this Parliament I have the honour to be the Member for Leith, the port of Edinburgh which was represented for 25 years with distinction by James Hoy. Though now lost to this House, he took his seat in the House of Lords last week as Lord Hoy of Leith. Through the years he built up a firm reputation as a constituency Member of Parliament and as a Parliamentarian. He was well liked and respected there and here. In following him in this House I can only seek to do my best to serve as he did.
Leith is a distinctive community with an identity of its own. It was an independent burgh until involuntarily amalgamated with Edinburgh in 1921. Thoughtless commercial exploitation has destroyed a good deal of its old town and


has left behind a legacy all too common in this land of problems from unemployment and slum housing to depopulation and dereliction. But the historic part of the port has survived, and also the spirit of its people. Both have lived on to benefit from the new climate of town planning and environmental conservation.
Within its bounds the constituency of Leith illustrates some of the major problems of environment conservation and pollution. Its northern boundary is the sea, with wild life ranging from the grey seal to the gannet. Into that same stretch of sea pours the untreated sewage of a city of half-a-million people, fouling the mussel beds and driving away the fish. Oil pollution from tankers is a recent but so far minor addition.
The port itself straddles the water of Leith, a river recently described for the benefit of visitors to the Edinburgh Commonwealth Games as a trout stream running through the city. There may be some trout in it. There is certainly much pollution entering it. The impounding of the water of Leith by the new dock gates which make Leith a modern competitive deep-water port, open at all states of the tide, has as a side effect made more difficult the disposal of sewage in the old residential centre of the town where the underground water table has been raised. The residents rightly complain.
These problems highlight weaknesses in the present armoury of anti-pollution laws. There is no United Kingdom statutory control over the discharge of sewage into the open sea—a disgraceful state of affairs, I should have thought. There is no law in Scotland to protect sea fisheries from pollution. There is no law in Scotland to prevent pollution of underground water. The river purification boards in Scotland have no executive powers, as they have in England and Wales, to take direct action themselves to stop pollution of the rivers under their jurisdiction. The Lothians River Purification Board has fought valiantly against pollution in the Firth of Forth, but it lacks the necessary powers.
I hope that there will be early action in these matters, and I hope that the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution will take it upon itself—though I think that this may be slightly beyond its terms of reference—to point out the

need for new measures of control when it finds them wanting. This will inevitably call for greater public expenditure, a great deal more than the £4,000 with which we are concerned in the Vote tonight, but it is, surely, better to tax our people fairly than to tax our natural resources unfairly.
There is need for international as well as national and local measures. We live in the unstable and temporary equilibrium provided by the test ban treaty against atmospheric pollution by radiation. Just over a year ago, one or two barrels of a pesticide called Endosulfan contaminated the international waters of the Rhine and killed over 40 million fish. Although there has been a large measure of international agreement to conserve fisheries and to penalise oil pollution at sea, little has been done about the effective prevention of damage.
This brings into focus a paradox in regard to pollution. So many are against it, but so few are prepared to prevent it. The source of this paradox is human nature itself. Pollution by irresponsible use of the new products of science and technology—pesticides are an obvious illustration—springs from the same source that produced the earlier evils of the Industrial Revolution, still not wholly erased. That source is the unbridled profit motive, sometimes euphemistically called free enterprise.
This is where a cleavage comes between the opposing philosophies in the House. On this side, we believe that the main motive here, as in other spheres, must be social enterprise rather than profit, that it is not good enough to let profit freely do the damage and let conscience come along afterwards to repair it. Social responsibility, we believe, must be there from the first among the motives.
It was with some misgiving, therefore, that I watched what the new Conservative Government would do. We have seen their first steps. They have adopted—this is good—the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. On the other hand, they appear to have demoted—I may be wrong, and perhaps the Government spokesman will deal with it—the Central Anti-Pollution Unit, a scientific body which the last Government set up under the Department of Local Government and Regional Planning. I understand that that unit has now gone to the


Ministry of Housing and Local Government, under the care of a Parliamentary Secretary who is to answer for environmental matters and sport. I hope that that does not connote an attempt to restore the grouse-moor image in European Conservation Year, but the move does have the incidental result of transferring this important unit from a Ministry with United Kingdom responsibility to one whose jurisdiction is confined to England and Wales, which certainly will not help the fight against pollution in Scotland.
I have my misgivings about what a Government dedicated to free enterprise may do, or, more likely, may fail to do, but I am an optimist and I realise that in a maiden speech I should be relatively non-controversial. I hope that the Conservative Party is not beyond redemption in these matters. We now have before us the Bill which, among other things, will provide funds for the Royal Commission which Labour set up. That is the purpose of this Vote. It is not much money—I press that criticism—but it is a start.
The Tory philosophy is not all profit and free enterprise. Tories have, I understand, an older tradition of conserving what is good and controlling what is bad. Perhaps we on this side can play upon that better nature to see that the present Government act to conserve our environment and to prevent pollution. I hope that the House will approve the Vote but will, with me, enter some reservation about the small sum of money appropriated to this vital work.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hordern: It is a great privilege and pleasure to follow in the debate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray), who spoke with considerable grace and moved the House with his tribute to his predecessor, something which hon. Members on both sides are always most happy to hear. His predecessor was well known to us all for his work at the Ministry of Agriculture. Speaking for myself, I know how much pains he always took in replying on constituency matters. We are very glad to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House. In his speech he showed far more knowledge of his home

town of Leith than I had ever realised. My knowledge, I fear, was confined to the fact that the police of Leith were inclined to tell us to go home. The hon. Gentleman spoke with knowledge and great care of the problems of the environment in his constituency and on an international scale as well, and his observations were particularly fitting in World Conservation Year.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hordern: This is a timely moment to debate the increase of £4,000 in the provision for the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, under the able chairmanship of Sir Eric Ashby. I remind the House that its terms of reference include these words:
to advise on matters, both national and international, concerning the pollution of the environment; on the adequacy of research in this field; and the future possibilities of danger to the environment.
I have no doubt that the Commission will wish to consider under those terms the impact of aircraft noise on the environment and, in addition, the possibilities of danger to the environment from the siting of the Third London Airport.
Those who have the misfortune to live under one of the main aircraft routes know all about damage to the environment, but my constituents have to live under two of these routes, one from Heathrow and one from Gatwick. It is not too much to say that in summer there are people in my constituency who feel that they are living under an artillery barrage every night. Some have already left the area, so intolerable have they found the noise, and I do not blame them.
Every year, the aircraft noise grows worse. In 1966, the number of night jet movements from Gatwick was 2,204. In 1969, it had reached 4,504. This year, 1970, the airlines have been asked to accept a voluntary limit of just under 5,000. It was clear that, without such a voluntary limit, the number of movements would have exceeded 6,000.
While there is a voluntary restraint in effect of just under 5,000 for Gatwick this year, there is a firm limit on light jet movements from Heathrow of 3,500. It is difficult to see how there could be any justification for an apparently ever-increasing number of movements from


Gatwick but not from Heathrow. In the past, the Ministry has put forward the specious argument that there are fewer people around Gatwick than there are around Heathrow and that, therefore, the quantity of suffering would be less. If it is not an inappropriate word, what about the quality for those who suffer near Horsham? There is, apparently, no end to it—certainly if the Airports Authority has its way.
I should like to say a few words about the Commission's work. Many things are done in the name of progress. It is certainly a wonderful thing that so many people can get to their holiday destinations so quickly. But is it progress if the cost of doing so is to deprive other people of their sleep? Why, in particular, should there be a positive incentive to persuade people to fly by night rather than by day? In all conscience, surely it should be more expensive to fly by night, not cheaper. There are some airports which allow no night jet movements. Tokyo is but one example. I am not impressed with the argument that international schedules could not be maintained if the price of night flights was increased above that of daylight flights.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not sure how the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution could fix the rate of night flights.

Mr. Hordern: I was referring tangentally to the number of night flights affecting the environment in my constituency and, in deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I shall rapidly develop the point.
There is now a quantum of aircraft noise over my constituency which is intolerable and it should be drastically reduced. Unfortunately, if the Airports Authority has its way, the situation will get much worse. The potential effect on the environment will be disastrous. It arises mainly from the delay in the decision about the siting of the third London Airport. I have no doubt where the new airport should be sited. It should be on the coast, probably near Foulness. The Roskill Commission is going into unbelievable contortions in its costing exercises. What it cannot do is to measure the cost in terms of damage to health and to immediate amenity

value if the new airport is sited anywhere other than on the coast.
We do not know how many night jet movements there will be from Gatwick next year or the year after, but we do know that the Airports Authority, regardless of the decision on the third London Airport, is proposing in any case greatly to expand the existing capacity at Gatwick Airport. It must not be allowed to do this.
There is first the question of concentration of noise. The existing criterion under which the Roskill Commission works is that people should not be asked to live within the 35 N.N.I. contour. But if the full development of Gatwick proceeds, half of Crawley, in my constituency, would come within that area. Secondly, there is the quantity of noise. The Board of Trade expected 45 movements a day by 1975 as the standard busy rate, but the Airports Authority now proposes 60. It is not easy to imagine what the noise from that number will be like.
The environment takes in much more than the question of noise. It concerns also the countryside. There are already important factors at work. The three planning authorities for the Crawley-Gatwick sub-region are already planning for an increase in population of 30 per cent. by 1981—an extra 113,000 people. But the Airports Authority proposals envisage 24,000 jobs to be created at Gatwick by 1981. This, with the necessary number of service workers to support them, implies a population of an extra 100,000. This number would not arise from the natural growth of the area but would be superimposed simply through the failure to establish the third London airport.
The prospect is unthinkable. It is not easy to see where those people could go. Naturally, with the population increasing so quickly, no land has been earmarked. Then there are the physical difficulties. It is said that it is impossible to take more people in the Gatwick area because the River Mole cannot take much more water. I should have thought the answer was to dig deeper holes in the River Mole. Great objections were made during the war to the idea of taking the Mulberry Harbour across the Channel, but it was done. I decline to believe that it is impossible in 1970 to get over these engineering drainage problems.
It is seriously suggested that one of the most suitable sites, from a strictly drainage point of view, for a substantial increase in population is in the region of Billingshurst, in my constituency, 14 miles from Gatwick. If the Royal Commission visits Billingshurst, as I hope it will, it will find an attractive village on the site of an old Roman road with the Downs in full view to the south. Anybody who had the interests of the environment at heart would think it inconceivable that such an outrage could occur; but that it should occur because of delay in siting the third London airport is a manifest insult.
This must not be allowed to happen. The Airports Authority should be made to submit its ideas to a special Commission of Inquiry at which the environmental and planning consequences of such expansion could be considered. The Government should appoint such a Commission and should await its report before deciding on action on the Roskill Commission's proposals. I hope that the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution will use its funds to visit the area so that it can lend its powerful support to this proposal.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly in the debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), I compliment the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leigh (Mr. Murray) on his maiden speech, which was perhaps not entirely devoid of controversy. As someone whose mother came from Edinburgh, perhaps I can remind the hon. Gentleman, through the columns of HANSARD, that it has been said that the finest sight which a Scotsman sees is the high road to England stretching before him, and I believe that one of the greatest benefits which the hon. Gentleman will find that road offers is the acquisition of wisdom about matters which are not always wholly clear to Scotsmen who remain at home. Time might bring a little more knowledge to the hon. Gentleman on the subject of the Conservative Party's attitude than he would have acquired had he stayed at home.
We are able to discuss this subject because we are fortunate enough to find in the Supplementary Estimates a new

Vote of £4,000, under the Cabinet Office head, to finance the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. This opens up many possibilities into which hon. Members might be tempted to stray.

Mr. Speaker: I am conscious of the possibilities, but I try to protect hon. Members against temptation.

Mr. Onslow: It would be out of order for me to say how gracefully you rose to that fly, Mr. Speaker, but there are many matters which I, as a fisherman, would be tempted to speak on under this head. As someone who much prefers to live in the country rather than in the town, there are also many matters such as those touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham which I would dearly like to raise in defence of the countryside against its rape by motorways, power stations and other things which threaten the environment we knew as boys. But I intervene in this debate to speak specifically on the extent to which the environment is polluted by aircraft.
On 11th December, 1969, the then Prime Minister announced the setting up of the Royal Commission. He said that the intention was that the Commission
shall be a standing Commission able to take up any problem relating to pollution so that the benefit of the best possible advice will be available to Government Departments responsible for executive action".
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
'One aspect of this matter which has caused particular concern is the problem of noise. My right hon. Friend proposes to establish an Advisory Council to deal with this, on the lines of the Clean Air Council.
Since that statement, we have been told, on 17th February, the composition of the Commission. May I interpolate that it is a pity that no hon. Members were included? There is a tendency to exaggerate the gap between Parliament and people by failing to consider Members of Parliament for membership of Royal Commissions.
Apart from those two statements and some other reference in the Gracious Speech, the House has not yet had it fully explained precisely how the present Government view the functions of the Commission, what rôle the Advisory Council on Noise is to play, or whether it has met, although I hear rumours that


it may have met today. Within those limitations, I remind my hon. Friend of what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) on 11th December:
… what is required is not so much research as action …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1969; Vol. 793, c. 639–42.]
Many of the problems are fairly well known, much research has been done, and fairly comprehensive documentation is available. This all dates back to the so-called Wilson Report on Noise—a different Wilson, Sir Alan Wilson—which was published as Cmnd. 2056 in July, 1963. That contained some statements with which we would find it easy to agree today, such as that aircraft noise causes many complaints to reach Members of Parliament and others.
That being so, I should like my hon. Friend specifically to say to what extent he regards the new Advisory Council on Noise as a useful body. Some of the problems which confront us are not likely to wait on the deliberations of a Royal Commission or Advisory Council. The Chair, without disrespect, would probably agree that noise brings out the worst in us, and aircraft noise brings out the very worst in all of us when we are subjected to it.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Not my hon. Friend.

Mr. Onslow: With his usual generosity, my hon. Friend excepts me from my self-condemnation. He will heap coals of fire on my head in a moment, because one or two of the things I shall say will not be received with universal acclaim in the area of Gatwick Airport.
We are in grave danger of deceiving ourselves. The problems of aircraft noise have been foreseeable for some years. We know fairly well the trend which they are likely to follow. There is little that we can do to alter the present situation, or the situation likely to prevail over the next four of five years, but in so far as we can effect any alterations, it will be by spending considerable sums on fairly clearly identifiable heads of expenditure.
The first and the most important is building quieter aircraft. No hon. Member needs to suppose that, unless we

devote money, effort and skill to silencing, or reducing the noise of aircraft, we shall make any serious impact on the problem. The proposition that we must banish this evil thing as far away as we can and locate the aeroplane out on the salt flats of Foulness, is a complete piece of self-deception if anybody thereby supposes that there will be a significant improvement in the levels of noise which are experienced by people who live around Heathrow or Gatwick.
If we are to build quieter aircraft, we must make the decision now. Although I should be out of order if I went too far down this line, I must say that one of the most urgent decisions required of the Government is a decision to go ahead with the BAC3–11 project, and among the many benefits which would accrue from manufacturing this aircraft in this country is the fact that it would bring much closer to people who live near any of our international airports the advent of really quiet aircraft.
Although it is sometimes said that when the jumbos come, there will be a terrible noise, the jumbos have been flying over our heads for some months now, and the fact that so few people are aware of that is due to the jumbos being a good deal quieter than some of the aircraft we have been used to. Now we have to spend money on developing other new and quieter types, and on silencing existing types of aircraft, so far as we can, by retrofit, to use the inelegant American term—modifying existing noisy types of aircraft by fitting them with quieter engines. This represents the kind of break-through to which we should devote our attention.
Before any of my hon. Friends ask me how much noise I suppose Concorde will make, let me say that I am aware that this is one of the most important aspects of this project. The Government should be determined to go ahead with it, but in the knowledge that the number of Concordes we can sell depends largely on the extent to which the noise characteristics of the aircraft prove tolerable to the people who live around the airports of the world. There again is a subject on which time, skill and effort must be spent.
But it is still necessary to recognise reality and to try to live with it. I should like to pay a tribute to the previous


Minister of State at the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts), who used to speak on aviation subjects. I well remember that in a debate on the subject of aircraft noise he said:
There is a limit to what can be done, in our crowded island, to keep the aircraft away from the people. The real attack on the problem in the longer term must be to achieve a reduction of noise at source".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1970; Vol. 797, c. 879.]
However tempting it may be for hon. Members in whose constituencies airports exist, or are likely to be built, the reality of the situation still is that we must understand the limitations which are now imposed on us and the extent to which, with time and money, noise can be diminished, and then make our plans according to the improved situation which should lie within our reach within a few years.
This is where my quarrel with the Roskill Commission comes. I think that its terms of reference should be enlarged so that it is no longer confined to considering where the third London airport should be located, but is free to consider a national airport policy, to see where in Southern England a further international airport should be located if it is established that one is needed.
We are often given projections, which are encouraging or daunting depending on one's view of the subject, showing how air traffic is likely to increase in the years ahead; the fancy figure is 15 per cent. a year. On these projections are based statements of the compelling need for new airports within certain time scales. Something which has greatly impressed me in the last four or five years is how suddenly the need for a third London airport seems to have slipped back yet another 12 months, because the increase in air traffic has not materialised, because larger aircraft have come in and have been able to use existing airports.
I have the strongest suspicion that if this were gone into—and this is something to which the Royal Commission might usefully turn its attention and about which it might talk to the Roskill Commission—we should discover that there was no need for a third London airport any more and that what we really needed was a major international airport

a long way to the west of London, and I should say somewhere not far from Bristol.
If we were to do that, we could look forward to living in conditions in which our environment would be less polluted by aircraft and their attendant ground facilities than it would be if we were to go ahead with a massive investment in the worst possible place—at Foulness.
We will minimise the pollution of Essex if we do not have to build massive motorways between London and Foulness. There are motorways between London and Bristol, Birmingham and Bristol. We do not need to do more on them than we intend to do—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect I doubt whether the siting or non-siting of the third airport comes within the range of the Commission.

Mr. Onslow: I detected as much and I am not surprised that you have called me to order, Mr. Speaker. But I hope that I have sufficiently indicated the points I wanted to make. If any hon. Member is sufficiently curious to wish to know more I have a paper on the subject which I would be glad to make available to them and to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench.
We must not deceive ourselves or our constituents by supposing that we can work miracles. Certainly we must not suppose that the setting up of an Advisory Council will work the miracle or that pushing everything on to the lap of a Royal Commission—which was not wholly immune from the criticism that it was an election gimmick—will diminish the real problem. We must recognise that our means are limited and we must live within them.
It is all the more important since that is so and since we cannot afford to waste money that we should get our decisions right. In that context we should understand that we ought to be spending money on getting quieter aircraft, not in pushing new airports out to the farthest points of the country. Those who believe that the next airport must be built at Foulness or some such place and imply that those living within range of existing airports will be guaranteed sleep at night for the rest of their lives are doing no one a service—they are burying their heads in the sand.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: Previous speakers have dealt with the problem of aircraft noise which comes within the purview of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, but there are many other matters which the Commission must consider and it is these to which I shall refer. This is an appropriate time to discuss the subject because it is European Conservation Year and in this country we shall be finishing many of the activities of that Year with a major conference to be held in the Guildhall dealing with the Countryside 1970 which will summarise many of the arguments which have gone on up to now. One of the healthy things produced by this Conservation Year has been the immense development of interest which has been encouraged in all areas and which will prove to be of great help to the Royal Commission in stimulating the ways in which ideas are put across about the importance of this subject.
It will give some understanding of the relative importance of one issue as against another. A great deal has been going on with the encouragement of schools, professional bodies of all kinds and local authorities. We hoped that further steps would be taken, and some of the early plans were already being laid out for these, of which the setting up of the Royal Commission was one. While we welcome the fact that it is being allowed to continue and encouraged to go forward with its work, many of us very much regret that one of the first acts of the new Government was to put an end to the appointment of the Secretary of State who had special responsibility for this matter. We feel that he gave precision and point to the establishment of the Royal Commission and some real hope of new and rather more dynamic policies in this sphere, together with new levels of initiative which it could be said had been lacking.
Inevitably this is a subject covering a wide range of issues and Departmental responsibilities. The Ministry of Housing and Local Government is only one of many Ministries bound to be involved. There is a strong case for the establishment of a Ministry or at least a Minister with more than purely Departmental responsibilities, someone who will help co-ordinate the work of the others

involved. It is depressing, to say the least, that one of the first acts of the Government should have been to end this appointment. Although we have the assurance that the matter is under consideration with a view to determining the future structure, there is bound to be a pause of some months before we hear about that new structure. This could mean lost opportunities and initiatives, as Conservation Year is already with us.
It is all the more sad because this country has a high reputation as a result of the work it has undertaken and the legislation it has put on the Statute Book dealing with this. Other Western European countries tend to look to us for leadership. Without Western European co-operation some of the problems with which we are involved in environmental pollution cannot easily be solved. Some of the issues—one of them is aircraft noise—cannot wholly be overcome only through action in this country. We need the co-operation and agreement of other countries, the main aircraft manufacturers and so on. The extent to which we can get acceptance, from industry for example, of high standards for the effluent discharged from their factories into rivers may depend a great deal upon the applicability of such standards to their Western European competitors.
It is hardly likely that this would be welcomed by industry here if it feels that it is being asked to shoulder an expenditure burden not being placed upon its competitors. These issues clearly affect Western Europe intimately. This is why it has been so important that European Conservation Year should be a real success. The United Nations conference in two years' time must also be fully supported by this country. This emphasises the need for the Government to make clear their full-hearted support for this programme from the start. What action will the Ministry take on some of the areas of environmental pollution bound to be studied by the Royal Commission?
The pressures upon our countryside are varied and growing. There are pressures from urban life and development, from industry and from new agricultural methods. Most of all there are pressures placed upon it by ourselves and by our


leisure activities. All these matters have a major impact on our countryside and the quality of the environment in which we live.
It is important to those of us who live in the older industrial areas to know to what extent we can speed up the movement towards the clearance of dereliction. It is fair to say that a great deal was done by the previous Government to speed up the rate of clearance. Although many of us were far from satisfied with what was being accomplished and were pressing for more rapid development of this work, much was done in some of the areas which have suffered most severely. This progress can be seen in the old industrial areas of Durham, in parts of Northumberland and also in the South-West and in parts of the Midlands.
I should like to ask what the present Government intend to do to speed up this work still further. The record of previous Conservative Administrations has been dismal in this respect. Indeed, hardly any clearance of dereliction took place during their years of office. I am anxious that the new Government should put on a completely new face and adopt to the full measures and facilities which have been prepared by the outgoing Government.
What precise action do the Government intend to take? Up to the present we have had no encouraging sounds from them and I hope that we shall hear very much more about this subject. Many of these matters will be raised at the conference on the countryside in the autumn and I hope that we shall have a clear and positive reply from the Government this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) mentioned that a Conservative Government are dedicated to private enterprise. There is a fear that the Government may look with towards the question of pollution, which is essentially a matter for public action. It is feared that there will be too narrow a calculation of the monetary cost without regard to the positive values that can be achieved in the quality of our environment. It is hard to put on these things a value in terms of money. This is a matter upon which from time to time we may be in sharp

conflict across the Floor of the House. These are areas in which priority should be given. Yet they are areas in which there is no obvious financial advantage to be gained by particular firms, and indeed there might appear to be some financial disadvantages in the short run.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the failure of the previous Government to ensure sufficient supplies of smokeless fuel has increased the amount of pollution? Therefore, he can hardly talk about priorities.

Mr. Blenkinsop: If the hon. Gentleman has spent any time in travelling around the country, he must appreciate that the Labour Government have had a remarkable success with their clean air policy. Certainly in London this policy has been an outstanding success in its effect upon the quality of life. The old impression about London fogs, and so on, is utterly out of date. We must welcome this process as a real achievement to which all governments have contributed in the past. Because of the approach of a Conservative Government, there are dangers that they may allow their political views to inhibit the kind of action for which we are calling. For that reason I ask the hon. Gentleman in his reply to give the categoric assurances for which we are asking in this European Conservation Year.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: One of the greatest paradoxes is that the more industrialised and the wealthier nations become, the greater and more threatening is the problem of pollution. The industrial world has not yet come to grips with this problem, and there has been no serious attempt to try to overcome the pollution that mars the lives of so many people. Some parts of the world, which might be described as the developing countries, do not face this problem, but the richer nations are certainly beset with it. Let us hope that the developing countries will learn from what has happened because of lack of action by the industrial nations.
A further definition of pollution, in addition to anything foul or filthy, is that of destroying the purity or sanctity of something. I hope to address a few remarks on this matter a little later. So


far in the debate we have had contributions on clean air, the relevance of pollution to the countryside, and reference to the devastation of some of our beaches through the presence of oil. Hon. Members have referred to the effect of such pollution on wild life, which should be precious to all of us. We should be concerned not only with the effect of pollution on the life of human beings, but also with its effect on the lives of birds and animals which have such a place in the affections of all of us. Reference has also been made to the effect of smoke and fuel oils, and I shall try to concentrate a little later on the deleterious effects of road and air traffic and the noise aspects.
A major factor in determining the quality of our civilisation is how we seek to exert control over all forms of pollution, including road traffic noise and aircraft noise. A great deal of money will need to be spent on scientific and technological research. We must increase our knowledge of the effects of pollution and how to avoid it, and we must examine how to keep it at bay.
There will also have to be some analysis of the economics of all this, but the nub of the whole problem will be the establishment of some legal and administrative framework to bring about the diminution of pollution and prevent its recurrence. Speed is needed in all this, otherwise we shall continue to poison our environment and ourselves, damaging our lives even more.
Attacks on pollution are by no means new. I have done some research on the subject, and I have discovered that, in the fourteenth century, it was an offence in Greater London to make undue smoke. One poor character caught doing it was hanged. That may be going too far, but if its deleterious effect on human life were then recognised and if it were then seen as an obnoxious nuisance, it becomes clear that we have not moved very far in our attempts to arrest it.
It is interesting to note that until October, 1969, responsibility for controlling environmental pollution was spread over no fewer than ten Ministries. In February, 1970, we saw the setting up of the Royal Commission on the pollution of our environment. An additional Minister was appointed to the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Planning

with co-ordinating responsibilities and with a scientific unit under him.
I want to preface my next comment by saying that I mean nothing personal by it. It is almost farcical to see sitting on the Front Bench opposite, apparently with the intention of replying to the debate, the Minister who is responsible for sport. I cannot see anything funny in the subject of pollution, unless the presence of the hon. Gentleman opposite is intended to spur Mr. Tom Lehrer into writing another satirical piece on pollution.
We face two big problems. The first is what I call the large evils, the poisoning effects of pollution. Then there are the soul-destroying and comparatively minor evils of pollution. They irritate our souls. Noise, for example, brings out the worst in us all, as can be seen in this House, at football matches, and in our homes when conversation is drowned by an aircraft roaring overhead or a large lorry rumbling down the street outside.
On pages 10 and 11 of Cmnd. 4373, there are proposals for dealing with motor vehicle exhausts and the poison pushed out by them, and reference is made on pages 14 and 15 to noise pollution by aircraft and traffic.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are rumours that that White Paper has now been withdrawn?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): indicated dissent.

Mr. Molloy: Apparently the hon. Gentleman opposite does not agree with my hon. Friend. No doubt he will refer to this when he replies to the debate.
I want to draw attention to what might be considered to be some of the smaller aspects of pollution, though they are very real to the people affected by them. Through the heart of my constituency runs Western Avenue. It is a very large and important trunk road. Not far from my constituency is Heathrow Airport. It is not unfair to say that people who live in Greenford and Northolt suffer the worst of both worlds in that they are subjected to aircraft noise and the noise of great vehicles pounding down Western Avenue.
The situation has now become even worse and has given rise to a problem which must be tackled. Many very large vehicles travel along Western Avenue carrying raw materials and finished goods which I accept at once are essential to our economic life. In order to avoid a number of busy road junctions, the practice is growing for them to make their way round the smaller streets of Ealing, North. I do not imagine for a moment that many hon. Members are aware of Brunswick Road. It is a small road which lies behind Western Avenue. Recently it has become almost as busy as Western Avenue itself. But it was not constructed to take massive loads of traffic, and not only are the lives of people living in that road being upset; their property is becoming seriously damaged.
A similar state of affairs has occurred in another part of my constituency. It was brought about because of the failure of a bridge in Kensington Road, Northolt, to bear its proper load. Naturally, it was closed. But that happened more than 12 months ago, and nothing much has been done since. Before the bridge failure, Kensington Road was a major link between Ruislip Road and Western Avenue. The effect of the closure on a number of other little streets in the area has been enormous. Pavements have been smashed and houses have been damaged by rumbling great lorries. Long traffic queues have become common in many parts of the area close to the bridge.
If the failure had occurred during the war, the bridge would have been replaced in 48 hours by a Bailey bridge, and traffic would have continued to flow almost normally. In my time, with the aid of a couple of hundred other Sappers, I have built many a Bailey bridge—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the Commission will not build any bridges. Bridges are the responsibility of some other Department.

Mr. Molloy: I had it in mind, Mr. Speaker, that the Commission might gain from my experience in the swift replacement of bridges. In this instance, it could have been done with a Bailey bridge. Instead, there has been a tremendous increase in pollution from noise

and fumes in small streets which were not designed to carry the kind of traffic which has been thrown on to them.
I do not suppose that hon. Members have heard of quiet residential streets like Hill Rise and Jeymew Drive which, for 12 months, have been subjected to a mass attack of noise pollution. In addition, since they have been discovered as alternative routes, they are now being used as parking bays by massive lorries. This is a very serious situation. In addition to lorries travelling down these quiet residential streets, they are now used by companies as parking places for their large lorries. [Laughter.] I do not know what hon. Gentlemen opposite find so funny. The people in Brunswick Road, Jeymew Drive and Hill Rise do not find it funny at all. Some have suggested to me that perhaps the only way to cure the problem is to tow some of the large lorries, if they could tow them far enough, and park them outside the homes of the directors of the companies owning them. Then there might be a big row.

Mr. Onslow: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that there are no British Road Services lorries involved?

Mr. Molloy: I am certain there are not. Otherwise I should have had some response. There was an occasion when British Road Services vehicles were involved and I had a response. I did not intend to introduce this aspect, but the hon. Gentleman has done so. Let me therefore say that these are the crimes of vulgar, private enterprise entrepeneurs. You asked for it and you got it.

Mr. Speaker: I assure the hon. Member that the Chair asked for nothing.

Mr. Molloy: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I was responding to the interjection by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). I think that he has been repaid in kind.
This is a serious matter, particularly in Ealing, North. Lorries travel along these quiet little streets and attempt to go round corners which they cannot properly negotiate with the result that pavements are smashed. They park in small residention areas. As a lorry cannot park completely on the road, half of it goes on the pavement, and again the result is that the pavement is smashed.
In addition, many people in their little semi-detached houses with garages find themselves penalised because they take their cars off the road at night. The following morning they see great lorries parked outside and they cannot get their vehicles out. This matter needs looking into.
I ask the Minister to consult his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider whether there ought to be an all-out drive with the Metropolitan Police to try to put a stop to it. The tragedy is that much of what I have explained is already against the law. We require law enforcement. I ask the Minister to consider that point.
My constituents in Hanger Hill, Perivale, Greenford and Northolt are entitled to have the sanctity of their home life protected. They have the right to have the quality of their life defended. What is more, they have the right to have noise pollution from both aircraft and traffic removed completely and their peace of mind restored. This is a serious issue. I sincerely ask the Minister to give attention to what I have said. I realise that this problem obtains in other parts of the country, but it is a deadly problem which has to be resolved. Much of it could be obliterated if the law were put into force, particularly with police action. Unless we do something the law and the police will fall into disrepute, and people will have no confidence in our traditional way of life. I believe that if we in this House indicate that we intend to tackle the problem throughout the country we shall show that we care and we shall uplift the standards of life of millions of people not only at their places of work, but, more important, in the homes to which they go after the day's labour is done.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are not quite half-way through the second of ten debates which are to take place during the evening and early morning. I shall call in order those hon. Members who won their places in the Ballot. After that, I shall call other hon. Members. Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Although we have

heard various strictures from the Opposition about how they have a social conscience and we Conservatives have not, it is strange that this is the first debate on pollution that we have had in European Conservation Year. I am glad that we are having this opportunity, before the Summer Recess, to discuss this subject which has begun to play a larger and larger part in all our lives.

Mr. Harold Walker: I apologise for interrupting so early in the hon. Gentleman's speech. Is it not true that the opportunity for this debate is provided by the establishment of a Royal Commission to look into the problem of environmental pollution and that that Royal Commission was established under the Labour Government?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for that interjection. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Royal Commission was set up last year. Therefore, it is not much of an excuse to say that nothing could have been done in the interval, particularly as this is European Conservation Year.
Exactly when our interest in pollution in this House was really sparked we cannot be sure, but it was probably the "Torrey Canyon" disaster that brought to our minds the possibility that the technologies which we are now pioneering in this country and, indeed, throughout the world concerning vast new tankers brought with them dangers that we had never before considered. From that disaster sprang the awareness, but I suspect that it was the American emphasis on pollution, particularly during their Presidential campaign and soon after, that made us as aware as we now are and probably resulted in the setting up of the Royal Commission.
The Supplementary Estimate that we are discussing this evening is for only £4,000. Yet I suspect that, although the sum is small, the subject matter which that Royal Commission could discuss is so enormous that one may ask what exactly we want of this Royal Commission whose terms of reference are
to advise on matters, both national and international, concerning the pollution of the environment; on the adequacy of research in this field; and the future possibilities of danger to the environment.
With such terms of reference we must await its first deliberations with enthusiasm.
I wonder how it is to advise on international matters. What does that phrase mean? Will the Commission travel to any part of the world that takes its fancy? Or shall we limit what we expect it to do?
Now that the Commission has been in being for more than six months, may we know when we are likely to see the first of its deliberations? Could we know what tasks it has already been set? What are these problems of environmental pollution that the Government of the day thought the Commission should be looking into? When we know that, may we know when we might expect to see the results of some of the work which it must have been doing?
It is reasonable to argue that, since the Minister who was appointed at the time to have special responsibility for environmental pollution no longer exists, the Royal Commission now has no useful purpose. For who will it advise? Will it advise the Prime Minister? Will it advise the Cabinet? Will it advise this House? Whose responsibility is it now? Who will decide what tasks it should undertake? I also think that any Commission which is given the brief of environmental pollution deserves to know how we interpret that phrase.
As I have said, the Royal Commission was set up soon after the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning had been given the overlord position. But, despite that overlord position, the Minister's appointment did not affect the responsibility that ten Ministries have for pollution of one kind or another. Therefore, this raises the question: what was the Minister going to do? Can we lump pollution together in such a way that one Minister can act effectively? Are we working on the false premise that there is such a thing as environmental pollution, that there is one cause, and that, therefore, one Minister with a staff can cope with the problem? I do not think that this makes any sense at all, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister decided that that Ministerial appointment had no significance and no relevance and could not be effective.
Indeed, I do not remember that Minister ever making a statement in the

House which had any bearing at all on environmental pollution. No doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite will say that he did not have time to do so, and that may be the case, but I suspect that when he realised the task before him he felt that the other tasks he had on hand had considerably more priority.
I maintain that if one accepts that environmental pollution is anything from cigarette smoking to poisonous gas, noise, dust, dirty water; if one accepts that environmental pollution starts with man and his waste, then truthfully ten Ministries are not enough, because there are probably elements of environmental pollution in the work of all the other Ministries as well, and therefore this concept of one Minister makes absolutely no sense at all.
May I interject here, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) who suggested that private industry was somehow responsible for pollution, and that those with a social conscience would not let it happen, that one of the most heavily polluted lakes in the world is Lake Baikal in Russia, and I need hardly say what sort of Government operates in that area. The fact of the matter is that environmental pollution is myriad and covers an enormous complexity of problems, and that within the foreseeable future we shall require the services of at least ten Ministries to get some sort of grasp of the problem.

Mr. Molloy: The hon. Gentleman ought to realise that the creation of the one Minister for the job did not mean that ten other Ministers were pushed to one side. The job of the appointed Minister was to co-ordinate the various aspects of pollution which came under various Ministries. I agree with what was said earlier, that the person in charge of the job ought to be a senior Minister. I believe that we shall move to that, but what was done was a step in the right direction to co-ordinate the effects of pollution which are the responsibility of ten Ministers. The one Minister had a co-ordinating responsibility, with a scientific and technological staff to help him.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that explanation, even if I am not entirely satisfied with it.
Environmental pollution, and what we mean by that term, may become the brief of this Royal Commission. It may be that it should have this task of co-ordination and should feed out ideas to Ministeries, and that in a sense it should take over the task which the Minister has relinquished. But then we have to define this term "environmental pollution", and here I have to go across the Atlantic to find what the American President's Special Scientific Advisory Committee defined it as, because this is about the best that I have seen so far. It defined environmental pollution as
the unfavourable alteration of our surroundings, wholly or largely as a by-product of man's action, through direct or indirect effects of changes in energy patterns, radiation levels, chemical and physical constitution and abundances of organisms.
I think we all agree that that is a comprehensive definition.
I want to concentrate my remarks on two aspects of environmental pollution, using that definition as the basis for my remarks. The two aspects on which I want to concentrate are the dangers to health and the damage to natural amenities. As the American definition states, both are the unfavourable alteration of our surroundings as a by-product of man's action. The easiest example of the health hazard, the one which has been mentioned in this debate, is that of clean air, or dirty air now a good deal cleaner, thanks to the Clean Air Act which was so much the task and work of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), and we all owe him a great debt of gratitude for the way he pushed that Act forward against quite a lot of opposition.
The Clean Air Act was designed primarily to make sure that air heavily contaminated by coal fire smoke would no longer have that contamination, hence the need for smokeless fuels of one sort or another, and hence my reference to the shortages of that fuel which have caused a slowing down in the creation of smokeless zones. Dirty air can produce considerable health hazards. We all remember the high death rate during the great smogs, and it is a joy to see winter after winter passing without a smog till one wonders where the London pea-souper has gone.
Dirty air constitutes a health hazard, but it does not necessarily constitute a

damage to our amenities, at least not in the short-term, and there is therefore a distinction to be drawn here. On the other hand, anyone who has travelled by Hover-Lloyd hovercraft to Calais is aware of the extremely pernicious smell round the hoverport at Calais, which apparently is the creation of the large chemical works quite close by. That is an unpleasant area to be in, though clearly there is no health hazard.
On the one hand, therefore, we have the health hazard of dirty air, and on the other we have the loss of amenity without a health hazard, but both, in my submission, constitute environmental pollution. The point I am seeking to make is that both deserve equal treatment, because both damage the quality of life; the quality of the environment in which human beings live. It is the overall quality of the environment which really matters, and it is this with which the Royal Commission should be occupying its time.
I want to illustrate my argument with examples from three different areas. They are areas in which pollution is a problem, and on which I hope the Royal Commission is spending time and some of the Supplementary Estimate. The first area is that of vehicle noise, and I couple with that vehicle exhaust pollution. Last Session the House gave me leave to bring in a Bill whose purpose was
to maintain environmental amenities by restricting noise levels of motor vehicles, motor cycles and aircraft".
I shall not take up the time of the House with the question of aircraft noise, because this has been fairly adequately dealt with already, but I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) about heavy lorries, because they were certainly in my mind when I drafted my Bill.
I think we are all conscious that vehicle noise is now almost inescapable wherever one goes in this country. It is not restricted to towns any more. It constitutes a considerable nuisance and is by my definition a damaging influence on our enjoyment of life. Yet, because this damage in terms of vehicle noise is so hard to assess, it seems that little is being done to put it right. Motor cycles, either with silencers or without, I am not able to say which, roar around our


cities, but one seldom hears of prosecutions for that kind of offence. I hesitate to say this, but there seem to be so many fewer policemen on the streets today that perhaps they are not aware of the nuisance of which so many pedestrians are aware, and so many office workers, too. I feel that if I were a policeman I should be making an awful lot of arrests and prosecutions which I am sure would do nothing but good in quietening down the noise in our cities. Diesel lorries clatter through the West End. They go past this House hour after hour on their way to the docks, and noisy cars, too, get away with it.
New motor regulations came into effect on 1st April. Those regulations lay down noise levels, but those noise levels can be made to stick only if the constabulary concerned has a noise meter, as referred to in the regulations. It has now turned out that the setting up of those noise meters in large cities and towns is virtually impossible, for all sorts of physical reasons, and the consequent effect is that prosecutions for vehicle noise are falling off. Whenever a prosecution is made simply by the sound that a policeman hears, all that the defence counsel needs to ask the policeman is, "What were the meter readings?". When the policeman is unable to give them, the prosecution usually fails. Vehicle noise, therefore, is likely to be with us for rather too long ahead for my liking so I hope that something better than a noise meter, as laid down in the regulations, will be introduced. That is another subject for the Royal Commission to consider.
I also remind the Minister that cars are being made in this country for export to West Germany and Switzerland which to meet the laws of those countries have to be quieter than cars sold for the home market. That is an intolerable situation.
Next I turn to exhaust fumes. Scientists tell us that exhaust fumes, although unpleasant, do not necessarily constitute a health hazard. But they do constitute a health hazard in America, so much so that the American Administration insists that cars to be sold in America but built in this country must emit 37 per cent. less exhaust fumes than those that we have on our roads. I know the argument is that the climatic conditions in America are different—the air is still, and therefore

there is a higher accumulation of all the pollutants that come from exhausts—but it annoys me to think that dirty cars are made for use in England and clean ones are made for use in America. I hope that the Royal Commission will spend some time considering that point.
A famous English engineering company called Ricardo's, at Shoreham, is doing research on this problem for English manufacturers who are selling cars to America. They showed me that exhaust fumes could be reduced. If petrol is the problem, is it the only fuel that we must have for powering our vehicles?
Several hon. Members, including myself, had the opportunity of seeing a London taxi outside the House of Commons, just by St. Stephen's Entrance, which was run, in a demonstration, first on petrol then on propane gas. The figures that we obtained from that small demonstration were very impressive. The amount of carbon monoxide emitted by the taxi through its exhaust system when running on petrol was 5·2 per cent. whereas when it was running on propane the figure was 0·1 per cent.—an incredible reduction in pollution. There was also a significant reduction in unburnt hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, lead and visible carbon. The manufacturers of propane said that they did not see how it could replace petrol because it is not in sufficient supply. They felt, however, that it could be used as fuel for heavy passenger and goods-carrying vehicles—including London buses.
It is when urban transport stands at traffic lights or in traffic jams, when the engines are idling, that the greatest amount of exhaust pollution is poured out—the sort of pollution through which we often have to walk, and which causes us to cough afterwards. That makes us wonder whether the scientists are right in saying that it is not a medical hazard. If propane could be used to power London buses, can we not have an experiment to see what can be done, because this is an area where the amenity of a city could and should be improved. Here again, I turn to the Royal Commission and wonder whether it has looked into that question.
Finally I turn to a totally different subject but one that often occupies space in the newspapers. First, I must admit an interest in the matter. My company


works for the Association of River Authorities. Therefore, when I talk about them I do so from an interested position. The association represents the interests of the 29 river authorities in England and Wales which have the responsibility of trying to improve the quality of water in our rivers while more and more effluent is being poured into them.
It always startles me to find that the effluent standards being used as a measure of effluent in our rivers was set 50 years ago. In those terms alone it is high time that we thought again whether those standards are correct for the 1970s. Effluent standards have a direct bearing on the amount of sewage being put into our rivers. That, in turn, constitutes a major pollution factor. It is generally accepted that we have enough sewage works in this country, but it is also accepted that many of them are not big enough to do the job that they are now required to do. Nor do they have the trained personnel that they badly require if they are to be as efficient as they should be. It is an unhappy fact that three out of every five local authority sewage works produce effluent below the river authorities' consent conditions. That can only mean that our rivers are more polluted than they should be.
It is also a fact that we spend on sewerage works annually about 25s. per head. If we are talking seriously of reducing the amount of pollution in the environment we should give such a basic piece of equipment for any community rather greater priority, and should spend rather more money on it than merely 25s. a year per head of population.
The question is: how much are we prepared to spend, and what do we want our rivers to be? Are we prepared to put up with murky, sluggish industrial drains, or are we looking to our rivers to be sources of clean water, full of fish, so that their amenity value for fishermen, boaters, swimmers and anybody who enjoys walking by or going on a river is enhanced? My two apparently different themes come together here completely—the health hazard of the polluted river and the damage to the amenity value of that river in terms of the loss of pleasure of the people who have anything to do with it.
I do not think that anybody would disagree with me in saying that we want

our rivers to be sources of clean water. We want them to be a great amenity—something that we can all enjoy. Therefore we have to be prepared to spend whatever is required to bring them up to the standards that we sometimes see in the countryside when we come across a really clean river in which the water is so clear that we can see the fish.
The light, fortunately, is dawning. Simply because a sufficient number of people are now making noises that something must be done. But it is one thing to talk about what should be done and quite another thing to do it. I have asked what the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution has been doing, and I return to this subject of rivers to ask whether they are in its first brief. Is it considering the problem of river pollution? If so, will it produce findings and give us views on whether river authorities should have pollution prevention powers down to and including tidal waters? Will it advise on whether there should be stiffer penalties for those who wantonly cause pollution? Will it say whether legislation should be introduced to insist on minimum standards for the storage of chemicals or oil beside a river, to avoid such disasters as the Rhine disaster, which the hon. Member for Leith mentioned in his maiden speech?
Shall we be told how the Commission thinks that phosgene, for instance, should be disposed of? A recent case in Wrexham suggests that there is no control over the way in which chemical waste should be got rid of. How tragic if it gets into one's own river supply, but how appalling to think that, while we talk about environmental pollution, such a danger is a real danger for so many people.
Will the Royal Commission tell us whether we should insist that industry starts to clean up its own mess, if need be by the river authorities being allowed to impose a charge on those who continue to run their waste discharges into a river? Will river authorities be given power to refuse consent to a new discharge from a factory which does not come up to the required standards?
Apparently, the Royal Commission has so far cost this nation only £4,000. I do not grudge one penny of that money. I believe that this Commission has one


of the most important tasks in the country. If this money is being spent—as I hope and believe that the Minister will tell us it is being spent—in looking into some of the problems on which I and my hon. Friends have touched, that Commission deserves far more than £4,000. How do the Government see its future rôle, and can the Minister tell us exactly what it is doing?

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Brynmor John: In asking for the traditional indulgence of the House for this my maiden speech, may I also say that I hope to achieve a personal precedent in combining an adequate dealing with a topic with brevity. I realise how powerful a hostage to fortune I have there given.
It is with pleasure that I mention my predecessor, Mr. Arthur Pearson, who represented the constituency of Pontypridd in this honourable House for 32 years. His dignity and sincerity and the quiet purposefulness with which he discharged his duties made him highly respected in the constituency, and I am sure that those qualities earned him a similar respect in this House. I should be glad if I could rely on his experience and strength in speaking in this debate rather than on my own fledgling powers of persuasion.
Pontypridd is a constituency which combines a rural southern area with an industrial area where the old industrial order is rapidly giving way to the new. With tremendous new housing developments within it, it is clearly a community and a constituency in which environmental questions are important. In the northern area of the constituency were, and are, located the coalmines which made the constituency such a typical South Welsh area.
When I inform them that one of the villages in my constituency is Gilfach Goch, which was the setting for the novel "How Green Was My Valley", hon. Members will appreciate how much the natural beauty of the area suffered in the industrial struggles of the 19th century. Indeed, I often think that the radicalism of the area may be explained by the close proximity of natural beauty and man-made squalor in the areas of South Wales.
But coal-mining illustrates a theme which is all too often forgotten in debates on environmental pollution—namely, that it is an industry which has bequeathed to its heirs, the inhabitants of coal-mining areas, a legacy of derelict land, ugly tips and scars and that these are no less a pollution of the environment than an oil leakage or exhaust fumes.
As hon. Members realise, the coal-mining industry is contracting, and people are now having to travel further and further to their work. If we are not to crowd these people into smaller and smaller living areas, it is clearly important that they should be encouraged to remain living in the valley areas. That encouragement will be provided by making those areas as pleasant to live in as possible. It is a recent development that we all realise that to live in a pleasant environment is as much a part of our standard of living as our ability to buy a motor car or a television set. But it is a situation which can only be created by society acting together to overcome it, and hon. Members opposite who yearn nostalgically for a cut in public expenditure would do well to ponder the expanding demands which modern life throws up in this connection.
In my view, although there has been a highly encouraging start to the tackling of the problem of derelict land, we now need an acceleration in that treatment to ensure that the decent environment which we want for these areas is a matter of sooner rather than later. In dealing with this problem of derelict land we must remember that it is a continuing problem—new lands are being taken each year in dereliction, so any figures which we can have for reclamation must be net figures.
The Civic Trust has estimated that more land is currently being made derelict than is being reclaimed. It was reported in the Western Mail on Monday that the Chairman of the Council for the Preservation of Rural Wales had said in a speech that he estimated that the problems of derelict industrial land in Wales would be solved by 1980. This seems wildly over-optimistic, when one realises that, for 1967 to 1970, despite the tremendous pioneering efforts of the Derelict Land Unit of the Welsh Office, only 1,670 derelict land acres were reclaimed and there are 20,500 such acres in the whole of


Wales. Nevertheless, I and my hon. Friends would welcome a statement on the future of the Derelict Land Unit and its future sphere of activity.
Although Government grants at 85 per cent. of the cost are generous, to have to pay the balance of the cost of reclamation can be a heavy burden on local authorities in areas in which, by tradition, rateable values are not high. A severe financial burden can be placed on the inhabitants, who must pay the increased rates when they themselves have already suffered from the dereliction being on their doorsteps.
It is, therefore, important to consider the financial aspect of the reclamation of derelict land. It is fashionable to say, "Make the industry pay", but in my area there are two inhibiting factors against that. The first is that the area is a development area. In South Wales, we must have a delicate balancing act, just because it is a development area, between the desire for a decent environment and the necessity to preserve employment for the people living there. This not only means a choice between past dereliction and a decent environment but, in many instances, ignoring continuing pollution.
Secondly, it does not assist to say "make the industry pay", because often an industry which has caused the dereliction is itself involved in a struggle for its industrial life, so that to add further expense to that industry could sound its death knell. It is, therefore, time that the Commission and the Government persuaded the Exchequer to recognise its obligation to meet the whole of the cost of such reclamation work and to remove the legacy of dereliction which hangs over the older industrial areas.
I remind the Government, and particularly the Secretary of State for Wales, that in rural Wales pollution of our environment can take a more elemental form. By "elemental" I mean that too often people in rural areas in twentieth century Wales are living in communities governed by public health standards of a much earlier period. I know of areas in the Vale of Glamorgan, which is the southern end of my constituency, where the problem is reaching such an extent that it is a reproach to our claim to live in a decent society and a civilised

country. For example, when one sees such things as a cess pit drainage regularly overspilling, the contents running across the road to people who are standing in a bus queue opposite, this and similar problems cry aloud for solution, and the solution is to be found by sanctioning extra Government expenditure for decent sanitary facilities.
I hope that my remarks will not be considered inadequate in that I have dealt with the whole subject of environment pollution in Wales by mentioning only two topics. I appreciate that the subject covers an enormous sphere. It is important initially in this my maiden speech for me to deal with the problems of which I have personal acquaintance. I thank this honourable House for extending to me its customary courtesy and kindness in its reception of this my first contribution.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Carol Mather: I am pleased to have been called to speak following the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). Only a week ago I made my maiden speech, but I am glad to have been called at this time because I have had many connections with Wales.
I know the problems of the valleys to which the hon. Gentleman referred and the House in general will agree that there is no better person than somebody coming from those valleys to talk here about the problems of environment and pollution. The hon. Gentleman made a thoughtful speech and added greatly to the debate.
I am grateful for the chance of speaking twice since coming to this place and it might be apt if, at the outset, I said something about the strange environment in which I find myself. This place seems a mixture between a university campus, a market place, a house party—and, a prisoner of war camp, and I speak with some authority because I have had experience of all these. The biggest impact this House has made on me has been the great friendliness and courtesy that one has received from hon. Members on all sides.
It has been said that this debate is likely to go on into the early hours of the morning. This seems a good opportunity to debate the great variety of issues


of State. During those dark watches, during this "vigil", as it were, we will be guarding the affairs of the people, and as far as this debate is concerned, the environment in which they live.
This debate is apt, for, as previous hon. Members have pointed out, this is European Conservation Year. It is apt that we should be discussing these issues at his time. In the Conservative Party manifesto "A Better Tomorrow" we stated our intention to bring about a better environment and said that we should launch a major campaign to bring it about. I hope that this debate represents the opening shots in that campaign.
It is necessary—I am sure that the Royal Commission will find it so—to spread our net very wide and to look at the background and history of the problem of pollution. Indeed, one must go back even further than Adam and Eve, to the time when man was given dominion over what he contemptuously called the lower kingdoms of nature; and he has consistently misused this dominion, no more than at the present time.
I am, of course, referring to the mineral, vegetable and animal kingdoms, all of which we have discussed. As for the mineral kingdom, we are tearing it to pieces to get out of the earth what we need for manufacturing industries, and we are putting back into its deep clefts dangerous poisons. We are also detonating nuclear explosives beneath the earth, and I cannot believe that the mineral kingdom is too happy about this.
We are poisoning the vegetable kingdom and exploiting our land to grow more and more and to take greater amounts out of it. We are ruthlessly destroying the landscape and everything in our path, including hedgerows, 7,000 miles of which disappear every year.
Even the giant hogweed, which has just raised its head, is threatened. People are already shouting for us to provide stronger poisons to destroy it. I assure hon. Members, having one of these plants in my garden, that if one does not frighten it, it will not do one any harm.
As for the animal kingdom, wild life is retreating everywhere and we are wiping out whole civilisations of wild life throughout the world. This is easily realised when one examines what we are

doing to the water, which is the vehicle carrying man's poisons and spreading them throughout the globe. It is acting as man's agent for the genocide which he is perpetrating on the animals of the world.
The same can be said of the air. It is shattered with nuclear explosions, and these cause climatic and elemental upheavals about which we do not know enough. I suggest that until we have learned to live in harmony with all these elements—and the Royal Commission should look into this—our survival will be in jeopardy. The chances of our destroying ourselves are high. Only last November, in the B.B.C. Reith Lectures, Dr. Frank Darling suggested that pollution was going on at such a massive rate that very soon the world could become uninhabitable. He pointed out that this might happen quite suddenly because the problem would be too big and too complex for us to tackle in time.
Indeed, experts in the United States say that we have only ten years in which to deal with the problem. The former hydrographer of the Royal Navy, Sir Edmund Irving, has suggested that by the end of the century our oceans might become deserts and dead seas.
The signs are very clear for all to see, and confirmation of these signs appears regularly in the newspapers. I will give only a few examples. It is said that jet aircraft landing and taking off in New York deposit 36 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year. This has a "greenhouse" effect because it allows the sun's rays to come down but prevents them from escaping into the atmosphere. The only effect this has in this country is that it kills off the greenfly and gives us rather better roses.
However, if this goes on, it is thought that by the end of the century the temperature of the earth could be raised by two degrees Centigrade, and this would begin to melt the ice caps. Water generated by this melting process could, they say, be sufficient in mass to flood many cities. But all is not lost. We are pumping so much grit into the air that the sun's rays are not able to get through, and they are deflected back into the atmosphere. The ice-cap thus is catching up with us.
Another factor is the Russian intention to divert three giant rivers which at present flow into the Arctic, turning them round to irrigate the deserts of the Caspian and the Urals, and this could make for great global and climatic changes. It is said that this will once again start to melt the ice-caps so that we are back to square one. I give these illustrations as examples of the ignorant and dangerous way in which we are playing with the balance of nature.
Another example is that penguins have been picked up in the South Antarctic with persistent pesticides, such as D.D.T., in their bodies. This spread of biological poisoning is fantastic and frightening. The poison is spread on the fields, and leaches down into the rivers. The rivers flow into the seas, the seas flow into the oceans, and the poison goes to the furthest corners of the oceans.
Let us consider the peregrine falcon, for instance. This bird of prey is at the end of a biological chain. Seeds are spread with chemical substances. The pigeons eat the seeds, and the falcons are particularly fond of pigeons. So the process goes on, and the population of peregrine falcons has crashed in the United States and Europe in recent years, not because of direct killing but because sterile eggs are being laid.
In the water, we well know of the oil menace along the coasts, particularly those of us who have children and have to clean their feet. In the Rhine, as has already been mentioned, we had the example of a 250-mile stretch of fish life being destroyed right down the river.
There are all sorts of other examples, such as the eutrophication of inland lakes with the flow of nitrates into them, and the explosive growth of water weed, which kills all marine life. This is going on in Lake Erie in the United States. In the Scandinavian forests growth has been depressed by rain carrying the gases from oil burning. The problem is not just these isolated instances but their cumulative effect, as they go on at the same time. We can apply these considerations to what goes on in this country, and I am sure that the Royal Commission will do so. It seems to involve no Ministry but every Ministry, no one but every one, at the same time.
Social environment has become every bit as important today as social welfare was in the decades following the war. To deal with the problem we need a budget and a powerful spokesman, if possible independent of those Ministries whose legitimate activities actually cause these dangers. I hope that the Minister will accept this as a suggestion for promotion.
I should like to deal finally with aircraft noise, which is a particular problem in my constituency. I hope that the Royal Commission will give special attention to it. We have had many complaints today about aircraft noise. Everyone is very worried about it, but no one knows quite what can be done. I hope that the problem is now being realised.
There are two important factors. One is that we are getting worse noise the whole time and the other is that we are getting a lower tolerance of noise; people cannot accept noise as much as they did. This is a cumulative process. These two things are going on at the same time, rushing together rather like two express trains travelling towards each other. At the end there must be an explosion.
We can look forward to two major developments which will improve the situation. One is the development of quieter jet engines. I hope that the Government will take an early decision about the BAC 3–11, which carries one of those engines. Second, there is the development of short-take-off-and-landing and vertical-take-off-and-landing planes.
These are all most welcome developments, but there will be an eight- to ten-year gap before we feel any difference. I suggest seven palliatives for the situation. First, when we have bigger airliners they should have fewer frequencies because there will be more space in them.
Second, inclusive tour holiday traffic is concentrated in various places, particularly Gatwick. It should be spread all over the country, to many different airfields.
Third, the I.A.T.A. fare structure is centred on London. Therefore, it is cheaper for flights to come into London than to any other airport in the United Kingdom. I hope that the Ministry will have a look at this.
Fourth, there should be statutory penalties for airlines and pilots exceeding the noise limits. There is no statutory penalty now, and therefore there is no incentive for them to abide by the regulations.
Fifth, we should investigate different take-off routes from the same airfield, varying them so that the effect of the noise is mitigated for those who have it constantly overhead.
Sixth, there should be higher landing charges for noisier planes, or a tax on noise itself. The aircraft industry has told me that it has been waiting for an incentive to encourage it to develop quieter engines.
Seventh, we are approaching the time when we should have a ban, or severe restrictions, on flights on one day a week—on Sundays—because on one day a week we must have a bit of peace. People say that that suggestion does not accord with the economic facts of life. They ask how we can do this when it is in the interests of our economy that the planes should fly. But there is such a ban in Tokyo; the planes do not fly on Sunday in Tokyo. I call in aid the White Paper on the protection of the environment, which says that one of the powers the Board of Trade has is to impose severe restrictions on night jet flights from Heathrow. Therefore, why cannot it impose severe restrictions on day flights for one day a week?
I should like to put forward one solution for the eight-to-ten-year gap. Something must happen during that period. We must disperse our airfields from the centre of the country towards the coastal perimeters. This must be done with the third London airport, which should go to Foulness. But we can start now to disperse some of the airfields towards the perimeter. We have, for example, at Speke, Liverpool, a marvellous airfield which is not fully used, where the aircraft take off and land over the Mersey Estuary. Fuller use would be welcome to Liverpool.
There is a good airfield at Bristol and an alternative site near where the Bristol West Docks are planned to be, where aeroplanes could take off over the Severn Estuary. If airfields were located in these parts of the country, we could greatly

lessen the problem. It may be said that they are too far away, but it takes only two hours to get to Liverpool and the same time to get to Bristol from London, and sometimes it takes us two hours to get to Heathrow. There are other great estuaries, such as Morecambe Bay, the Humber and the Wash, which could be used. If we made use of them for developing future airfields we could save land in the country because we should be using marginal land. We could also conserve water by incorporating barrages. This would save the building of reservoirs in the middle of the country.
In the Select Committee on Science and Technology not long ago my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) drew attention to the fact that we are one of the three most densely populated countries in the world, with 30 million acres of agricultural land, of which we are losing 40,000 acres a year. We need the land, we need a bit of peace and we need a bit of imagination. Why do we seen to have lost the art for evolving great imaginative schemes and projects which we had in the past when great cathedrals were built and when the railway system was laid down in the comparatively short space of 20 years? If Governments cannot do these things, private enterprise should step in.
In an article the other day my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) pointed out that pollution is more than a material matter; there is also spiritual and moral pollution. One of the troubles in all this business is the fact that man has come to believe that he is infallible. When men hold that view, things are bound to go wrong. When Governments believe that they are infallible they fall; one fell last month. If man continues to believe that he is infallible, he, to, will fall. Man will destroy himself as surely as he destroys the fish, the penguins and the peregrine falcons. I believe that the £4,000 spent on this Royal Commission is cheap at the price.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I was impressed by a considerable part of the diagnoses produced by the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather), but I thought his prescription fell short of the very thoughtful and persuasive argument he


put forward for taking this subject with extreme seriousness. It is absolutely right to do that. If I may interject a lighter note, when he talked about the disappearance or extinction of the peregrine falcon I thought for a moment that he was referring to Peregrine Worsthorne. Unfortunately, he was not.
Nevertheless, the hon. Member's speech was a serious one which went to the heart of the problem. I parted company with him, however, when he spoke of the rôle of private enterprise in this matter. That seemed to contradict an earlier preception he made in which he recognised that the fight against pollution involves a reduction in profit. In other words, one cannot effectively struggle against pollution and at the same time maximise income. Whatever aspect of the problem we touch we find that the consequence of trying to make the environment good is that one is bound to reduce the profit. This applies not only to private profit, but to profit for the country.
This is where we have grave doubts whether the new Government, dedicated as they are to maximising of profit, can deal with this subject with the seriousness which it deserves and with the seriousness, to do them credit, which individual hon. Members opposite apply to it. There has been a suggestion that the fact that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) is the Minister who is to reply to the debate, means that it will not be treated with the seriousness it deserves. I hope that we shall be pleasantly surprised, and that he will be wearing his anti-sheep's clothing and not his pro-noise wolf's clothing. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is not present in the House now. He might have been replying to the debate. We have to be thankful for small mercies.
The fight against pollution, particularly the fight against aircraft noise, is an aspect of the wider struggle for the preservation of amenity in the technological age. This is what we are up against. The new hon Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) made a very able speech in which he drew attention to the problem of a declining industry. Whether it is the problem of decline or technological growth, basically we are asserting responsibility of government to ensure that replacement or actual growth takes place in a manner which the citizens can find

tolerable. It is the problem of the citizen in motion, on the one hand, and in his house, on the other. How can the two be reconciled? How can we move about the earth at the speed at which many of us desire to move in this growth period and relate that to the even more important desire of man to live quietly and peacefully in his own home?
I will not take this too widely, because the range of the debate would not permit it, but at some stage I should like to explore the proposition that environmental pollution is an aspect of growth and that with growth comes pollution Therefore, we must consider how to control growth so that it does not destroy us in the process. Basically, it is a job for Government.
I have been concerned particularly with the problem of aircraft noise from a constituency point of view. This form of pollution is suffered only by a section of the population. The largest group, not only in this country, but in the whole world, who endure the most severe deterioration in their life quality are the thousands of people who live under the glide path to Heathrow, which stretches from London Airport and covers the whole of the heavily populated residential areas out to the West and South-West of London. It includes Ealing, Acton, Hammersmith, Fulham, Putney, Richmond, Wandsworth, Twickenham, Kew, and so on. It must not be overlooked that the glide path in fact extends out as far as Esher, because the stack is out there.
If there were a new form of measurement of aircraft noise, if instead of the noise and number index there were a measurement of the number of people inconvenienced, it would be found that on that criterion the inconvenience—indeed, the distress in many cases—suffered by people living under the glide path to Heathrow far exceeds that caused in any other part of the country.
These people come at the top of the tree of those suffering inconvenience anywhere in the country or indeed in the world, because there is no airport so badly situated from this point of view as Heathrow is. I will not go into the accident of why Heathrow developed as it did. Everybody would agree—although the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds smiles, even he would agree—that if we


were planning afresh we would never dream of putting Heathrow Airport where it is today. If we had it near London, we would certainly put it on the east side of London so that planes would avoid travelling over the whole of London. In its present situation the prevailing wind means that at least 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. of planes must fly over the capital.
Longer-term alleviation is to be found in the construction of the third London airport. I agree with the suggestion that even then Heathrow will remain the favourite airport of aircraft operators because of its proximity to London. Here we return to the question of cost. Heathrow will remain the favourite airport because passengers will want to go there because it easier and cheaper to go there.
Hitherto I have always regarded Mr. Masefield, the Chairman of the British Airports Authority, as being on the other side of the fence. However, the other day I was delighted to read of his proposal—this is what the hon. Member for Esher suggested should be done—that higher charges should be levied for landing at Heathrow on noisier aircraft. This is the only contribution to the solution of the problem of aircraft noise that I have known Mr. Masefield make. We must welcome to the fold even those whose enlightenment arrives at a late stage. Let us welcome the conversion of Mr. Masefield to the aircraft anti-noise movement He will be an influential recruit.
The way that selection goes in favour of Heathrow can be demonstrated in a number of ways. There is heavy pressure on the Government—I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has discovered it yet, but he will if he has not—by interested parties. For instance, when, so as to give the glide-path residents some sleep, the number of aircraft allowed to land during the night is restricted, there are always bitter complaints, and diversion to Gatwick or elsewhere is strongly resisted. It is strongly resisted, first, by the aircraft operators, and then, naturally enough, by the people living near Gatwick.

Sir George Sinclair: Hear, hear.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Member for Dorking is probably among those resisters. On one occasion, he told

me—I forget whether in the Chamber or not—that he thought that I was personally responsible for some of the noise at Gatwick because I had made so much fuss about Heathrow and had succeeded in diverting some traffic to Gatwick. If I had, I should regard it as a matter of credit rather than otherwise.
That illustrates the point that we do not solve the problem by trying to divert noise from one point to another, whether by diverting noise from this airport to that or, as has been done recently, merely by diverting noise from one glide path at Heathrow to another. I can tell the House a little more of what has been done recently at Heathrow on this aspect of the matter, an aspect into which, among others, the Royal Commission will have to go. In July, the Board of Trade, writing to constituents living under the glide path, some of them in my constituency, said:
There are operational advantages in using one of the runways wholly for landings and the other for take-offs, and during May and June the runways have been operated in this mode.
This is the summer method of use, one runway being used for landing and the other for take-off, and one can see that there are operational advantages and that it probably minimises the possibility of error. The Board of Trade went on:
We realised, however, that this was placing an undue burden on areas overflown, and we have been seeking ways in which it could be reduced. Further study is needed not only of the operational and economic factors involved but also of the effect on amenity elsewhere if the pattern were changed"—
so amenity is taken into consideration—
but as a temporary measure, while we are seeking an acceptable longer-term arrangement, we arranged that from the morning of Monday, 29th June some of the traffic would be allowed to land on the northern runway so as to give some relief to the areas affected. While the aim will be to divide the traffic roughly equally over a period of time, it is likely that there will still be times when landing traffic over Putney will be intense.
Indeed, it is often very intense.
What that means is that there is at Heathrow a local attempt to spread the burden between runways and certain areas of London so that the citizens will receive not too unfair a measure of the noise which will come to them anyway. We see the way this works when airport authorities transfer aircraft from


one runway to another in order to try to give citizens living in Putney a bit of relief, but at the expense of citizens living in Hammersmith. They are switched back when the row grows at Hammersmith and Putney has it again. Then, when the row grows too loud under our glide path, aircraft are switched to Gatwick, after which, in turn, when the row develops, they are switched back again to Heathrow. That is what is happening. We are shuffling them about, and it will not do.
All this illustrates the need—this is where I quarrel bitterly with the hon. Member for Woking—for the third London airport, so that we may have a better distribution and have international aircraft coming in and landing over the sea, thus giving some relief to the inland airports.
Those are some of the problems which we must face. It is no use pretending that there is any quick or easy solution. I agree with those who have said that, if we could invent an aircraft engine much less noisy than the present ones, this would not only give enormous relief to thousands of people but it would be of great economic advantage to the nation. If this country could invent an aircraft engine which materially reduced the amount of noise, it would be much more profitable than the invention of sonic boom breakers. If one-tenth of the amount of money which was spent on supersonic civil flying by the Conservative Party when it was in office previously, which unfortunately was spent by the Labour Government and which is still being spent by this Government, had been devoted to research into silent aircraft flying, it would have been not only immensely beneficial to the people but financially and economically advantageous to the country.
We are beginning to move in that direction, and I hope that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will tell us that the Government intend to step up the amount of money devoted to research into producing a silent aircraft engine. If he says that, I shall withdraw any doubts which I may have expressed about the desirability of his being the Minister to reply to this debate. I hope that I shall be able to make that withdrawal.
The latest example of the efforts of all the people concerned, such as the operators,

with the permanence of Heathrow is the capital investment put into it. This is why this is a continuing struggle. More and more capital investment is going into Heathrow for cargo and passenger services. The latest development is the proposed extension of the underground in that direction. All this has the effect of establishing Heathrow as the No. 1 airport. We must fight this. The profitability of the airport is not the only factor which counts. In fact, it is secondary to the welfare of the people living near the airport.
That is a brave thing for any Government to say, and no Government has been prepared to say it. It would be a very great thing if this Government, of all Governments, were prepared to say it. I hope that enlightenment will dawn on them and that they will decide that profit is not everything but that the welfare and amenity of the citizen must be taken into account. Any Government is tempted to prefer the discomfort and even the distress of a substantial minority of its citizens to any degree of economic deprivation to the nation. I do not know whether the present Government will overcome that temptation. I hope that they will.
A great deal of lip-service will be paid on this issue. It is true that effective endeavours to mitigate pollution have been made. I am happy to say that fish have been found under Putney Bridge for the first time in 50 years. That indicates that in some areas endeavours against pollution have not been entirely unsuccessful and that improvements can be made. But aircraft noise involves a continual worsenment of the amenity of the people. All that those concerned with it have been able to do is to indulge in a form of Canute work in an endeavour to hold back a rising tide. In spite of their best endeavours, they have not been very successful. International conferences have been held, prolonged and sympathetic discussions have taken place and committees have been created. Now we have the Royal Commission.
Unfortunately, the former Minister did not have the chance or the time to do the work which I believe he would have done. I share the concern which has been expressed that the new Government do not appear to have recognised that there is considerable advantage in having a


high ranking Minister in the Cabinet with overall responsibility for this problem. I shall listen with interest to what the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds says.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) has told me of the growth of traffic at Luton. I hope that I am not guilty of being responsible not only for a growth of traffic at Gatwick but for a growth of noise at Luton. Even without any action on my part, or on the part of those associated with me in trying to mitigate aircraft noise, I believe that the British Airports Authority would have realised of its own accord that something would have to be done about Heathrow and that there had to be some dispersal. I am sorry that noise has developed at Luton and elsewhere. I can only tell the hon. Members concerned that we are all in the same boat and that those of us who live under the Heathrow glide path are suffering more than anybody else. We all urgently need a third London airport to share the burden.
Two things need to be done. That they are the effective things is demonstrated by the fact that they have always been resisted while other and diversionary activity has been permitted and even encouraged. The first is that the right of the citizen to sue aircraft operators for excessive aircraft noise, which I am sorry to say, was removed by a Labour Government in 1949, must be restored. My Private Member's Bill on aircraft noise, which set out among other things to restore this right, was not given much encouragement by the Labour Government and was effectively scuppered by Conservative Members who felt that the interests of aircraft manufacturers and operators were threatened by it.
Precisely! It is only when one begins to threaten the interests of aircraft operators that one begins to get at the nub of the problem and to be effective in doing something about it. The citizen must be armed with the power of the law which he may personally invoke through the courts. No Government can be relied on to protect the citizen if he is deprived of the power of legally protecting himself. We must restore to the citizen this elementary and essential right.
Secondly, as I have constantly urged and equally constantly been refused, responsibility for the control and limitation of noise must be removed from the Board of Trade. As Dame Mary Smeeton pointed out recently in the columns of The Times, the duty of the Board of Trade is to develop civil aviation to the full, and this means that its noise-mitigating functions must be secondary.
In spite of his larger numbers, the citizen on the ground will continue to find the balance tilted against him and in favour of the citizen in the air until such time as amenity has a Minister and not only a Minister, but a Department, to fight for it. Responsibility must be transferred to another Department. That is why I am not altogether alarmed by the notion that the reply to the debate will be made by a Minister from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. This is the development which, if the Minister rises to the responsibilities which his Department has in this matter, can be an encouraging sign.
What is going on is a straightforward power struggle and any solution which fails to recognise this fact and facts to provide for the strengthening of the forces of living against the forces of movement will have to be regarded with grave suspicion.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I ask for the indulgence of the House in making my maiden speech. I hope that hon. Members will allow me to name at the outset the man who until the recent General Election represented the constituency which I now have the honour to represent. The right hon. James Griffiths represented the constituency of Llanelly for 34 years and I believe by common consent did so with dedication and distinction. During that long period he also showed himself to be one of the great Parliamentarians. He showed himself to be a man who not only maintained, but, through the strength of his character and integrity, enhanced the great traditions of this House. I feel sure that hon. Members will join me in wishing to a loyal servant of this House a swift and complete recovery from the present illness besetting him.
It is customary on the occasion of a maiden speech to describe briefly to hon. Members the nature of the constituency


which the new Member represents. The Llanelly constituency at one time used to be one of the major producers in the world of tinplate and anthracite coal. The Welsh name for anthracite coal is glo caled which, literally translated, means "hard coal". As hon. Members know perhaps better than I, it is certainly hard coal in more senses than one. The amount of anthracite we now produce is less than in the past but its quality is still the finest in the world, as is indeed the quality and character of the men who go down to the bowels of the earth every day to bring the hard coal to the surface. Thanks to the efforts of my illustrious predecessor the great wealth of experience in tinplate making is now being utilised at the Trustre works of the Steel Company of Wales.
The constituency also produces a wide range of industrial products including motor car components at two British Leyland factories. I do not wish to convey the impression that the whole of Llanelly constituency is dominated by industrial plants and factories. We also have a rather beautiful coastline with a fine stretch of sandy beach. Unfortunately, and this is relevant to the debate, the Ministry of Defence has set its heart on taking over that coastline for the purpose of locating one of its gunnery ranges. It wants to transfer one of its ranges from the mud flats at Shoeburyness to the golden sands of Pembrey. My constituents can only hope that reason and common sense will ultimately prevail and that the Ministry of Defence will not embark upon this project, which will substantially pollute the environment of much of my constituency.
In many parts of the United Kingdom the problem of environmental pollution seems to be a relatively new and fairly recent phenomenon. Whereas previously pollution impinged in the main only upon the lives of the working classes and so was not of major interest to the population at large or to persons in authority, now it seems, as a result of the motor car and possibly the aircraft, that pollution is beginning to disturb the lives of a wider class of people. Apparently pollution now causes almost as much indignation in the drawing rooms of Hampstead or Putney as it did and still does in the working men's clubs of the Welsh valleys.
In industrial South Wales environmental pollution is not a recent phenomenon. Unfortunately it has been with us for more than 100 years. The black tips, the filthy rivers, the dusty streets are still ugly evidences of the so-called first industrial revolution. As we now consider the problems of pollution in the middle of the twentieth century, let us not be deceived, as many of our forefathers were, into believing that environmental pollution is an inevitable by-product of industrial progress and technological change. Pollution was and still is in the main the consequence of man's greed. Pollution is the by-product not of change but of the all-too-familiar cry to maximise profits. Every coal tip and slag heap in South Wales represented a higher rate of return for the coal owner on his cruel investment.
As hon. Members know, the previous Administration took some tentative steps to try to improve the situation. It is now possible for local authorities to claim from the central Government as much as 85 per cent. of the total cost of reclaiming derelict land. I am glad to say that the village of Glanamman in my constituency was one of the first in Wales to avail itself of this generous facility.
I urge the present Government not only to maintain but to improve on the previous Government legislation. Let the central Government bear the whole of this cost. It is only right that the United Kingdom taxpayers in general, who by and large have benefited from the industrial revolution, should help to compensate to some extent those areas which have not yet recovered from the industrial revolution.
We have heard from the Prime Minister of his desire to unite the nation. If the Government are sincere in this desire, let them prove that sincerity by spending a higher percentage of Government expenditure on those areas whose industrial growth is hampered by environmental pollution which they have inherited from the past. Let the Government give highest priority not to those areas east of Suez and in the Persian Gulf, not to the reduction of taxation which will benefit the higher income groups, but to those areas like industrial Wales which have suffered so much in the past and which still bear so many of the scars of a


ruthless exploitation. I thank the House for its indulgence.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: This is the first time that I have had the honour of congratulating an hon. Member on his maiden speech. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) on making a speech which was sincere. Everybody in the House respects a Member who speaks with sincerity and conviction on behalf of his constituents. The hon. Gentleman added a touch of the eloquence which we have come to associate with hon. Members from the Principality.
I will let him into a secret. I, too, had the notion of representing the constituency which I hope he will represent with distinction for many years to come. It is true that I did not have the opportunity of getting to know it as well as he obviously has, because the party which I sought to represent as their candidate did not even get so far as selecting me and the matter was not even put to the test of an election. It is a constituency with many fine citizens who have made a great contribution to the wealth of this nation. We respect the manner in which he paid such a generous tribute to the right hon. Gentleman who represented the constituency for so long and who was so admired and respected. We wish the new Member for Llanelly well.
It is not for me to introduce any note of controversy or to let a ripple of party controversy stir this debate. It has been a most equable debate and I do not want to add any party political fuel to what has taken place. However, some doubt has been cast by some hon. Members opposite, among them the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), on the intentions of the new Government and the dedication of my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate.
The truth is that no Government in our history have paid sufficient attention to the problems of pollution. They are not problems which can be laid purely at the door of past Conservative Administrations or Labour Administrations. Nor are they the fault of private enterprise alone.

Public authorities, too, must stand at the bar of criticism.
The hon. Member for South Shields referred to the Clean Air Act. I need not remind him that that legislation was passed during the period of a Conservative Administration. However, I let that pass because we all know that a great deal of obeisance is made to the concept of Conservation Year, and much lip-service is paid to the need to curb pollution. If in some respects we are in advance of other countries, that is no cause for a great deal of self-congratulation. Much remains to be done.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) who said that the time has come for action and that there are powers on the Statute Book already which enable us to act more rigorously. However, we seem to spend an awful lot of time getting down to it. The hon. Member for South Shields wants action. Let me remind him that the Wilson Report on noise was published as long ago as 1963. It recommended that the noise levels of vehicles on the roads should also be measured and that it should be an offence to emit more noise than is permitted from new vehicles. The report goes on:
We consider that the measurement of noise from vehicles on the road should start two years after the enactment of empowering legislation.
In the recent past, we have had a Government who commanded the support of the hon. Member for South Shields, but we all know that noise is still being emitted by vehicles and that action is not as swift and stern as it should be.
Part of the reason for this inaction is the lack of suitable equipment. In any event, there is not sufficient enforcement of the kind which could lead to improving our environment. I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a matter that we should emphasise and, where we see action being taken, we should praise those who take it.
Ministers and officials at the Board of Trade have given the lead internationally by their attempts to ensure that aircraft noise is diminished. My hon. Friend is right to point out that there is no quick and easy solution. However, it is there for us if we care to apply new techonolgy. I accept that this will do a great deal to mitigate the conditions endured by many


of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) from aircraft flying into and out of Gatwick.
I come now to a point where I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. I hope that those in the aircraft industry and those who run our nationalised and private airlines as well as those who are in charge of the British Airports Authority will take note of the fact that we are not prepared to wait for a new generation of aircraft to be fitted with quieter aero engines. They can help, but further action is required and we insist upon it being taken.
I realise that I cannot go too far on the point about a third London Airport. My hon. Friend says that he is not convinced of the need for it and that, with new and improved engines coming along, people living near Heathrow and Gatwick should not be too perturbed about the effects of modern aviation on their environment. Therefore, he denies the real need for the location of an airport at the extremities or, shall we say, at the coast.
That does not cut any ice with those who live in and around Gatwick. The proposals are to increase this airport and to develop it to such an extent that, by the 1980s, it will exceed even Heathrow in capacity. Instead of 3 million passengers passing through Gatwick, as they will this year, it will be 20 million by the 1980s. In other words, hundreds of thousands of acres of the serene Sussex countryside and hundreds of thousands of people who live there will be subjected to the daily and, so far, nightly bombardment of the modern jet plane, and an area of charm and high amenity will find its towns and villages turned into replicas of Southall, Hounslow, and other Western suburbs of London. We have heard what life is like there from the hon. Member for Putney and the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). This is what is proposed by the British Airports Authority by the 1980s when there will not be all that number of planes with the new, quieter engines—and, if they do have them, they are not all that quiet when they take off.
I submit that the insensitivity and, indeed, the arrogance of those who could dredge up such a plan is quite staggering in 1970. I believe it to be excelled only by their effrontery in presenting their

plan to the public for serious consideration. It is appalling that such a change in our environment could be proposed by a public authority. In my view, it shows an attitude of contempt for the public that is, in itself, contemptuous. I believe that all the local authorities, which are in agreement on this matter, are right to call a halt to this development and to hold a public inquiry.
I should now like to turn to atmospheric pollution caused by man's activities and to refer to the need for research. It is not a question of further research. I have pointed out the need for action and a will to act in a civilised and firm manner. However, it is highly desirable—this is within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution—that there should be further research in this sphere because there is a need for it.
To make this point, I should like to elaborate briefly on a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather). The House will recall that he referred to two forces at work. The first is the effect of carbon dioxide which causes a rise in the temperature. In this connection, the modern jet injects carbon dioxide into the upper atmosphere. That is what those nice, harmless-looking vapour trails are telling us when we see them in the sky.
My hon. Friend then pointed to the other force at work, which is the buildup of atmospheric dustiness caused by motor cars and by industry, to which the hon. Member for Llanelly referred, and by fertilisers which, if allowed to go unchecked, will reduce the earth's temperature. It must or could be comforting to some to think that this could be countered by the heating effects of carbon dioxide. But it would seem that the build-up of atmospheric dustiness is having a more influential effect than the accumulation of carbon dioxide. This is my impression. This is what some people argue at the conferences which have taken place on this subject, and I indebted in large measure for my information to the Report of the United Kingdom Scientific Mission to North America.
On that basis we might come to the conclusion that to counteract the cooling effect of atmospheric dust the more jets


there are in the atmosphere emitting heat-producing carbon dioxide the better, but some scientists, not all, hold the view that jet contrails—vapour trails as we usually call them—because they can lead to the extensive formation of cirrus clouds, could increase the cloud cover and thus effectively cut off the sun's rays and reduce the earth's temperature.
Obviously more needs to be known, and not just for academic reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher referred to the fact that the earth's temperature seems to be getting cooler. Certainly since 1940 it has been dropping, and continues to fall at the rate of 0·2 degrees in 20 years. Last year the North Atlantic coverage, the ice cap, was the most extensive for 60 years. That rather depressing and chilly thought leads me to the fact that the last ice age resulted from a drop in average temperature of between 45 and 50 degrees Fahrenheit. It may not concern us, but it may concern our children, and it certainly will concern our grandchildren.
As I see it, there is nothing academic or remote about research into the effects on our climate of man-made pollutants, and not least do I hope that due weight will be given by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution to the need—and this is the rather unglamorous side of its work—to establish standards so that when pollution is being measured we know precisely what standards are being used. The Royal Commission should use methods universally agreed upon and, one hopes, universally accepted, because many of us are somewhat sceptical.
There are people who will challenge one standard and then come back and rebut it with their arguments, and one finds that scientists are arguing about different things; about different standards of measurement. I am sure that this will be an increasingly important part of the work of the Royal Commission, because control of our environment is expensive. The benefits are usually intangible, and many vested interests, private and public, can, and often do, feel threatened. And, not least, there is the apathy of the public with which to contend.
It seems to me that we shall need to establish standard methods for measuring and monitoring pollution of various

kinds so that all of us will trust the evidence and thereby establish the need for action; and not only the need for action, but the will to take it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are just over half way through the second of 10 debates. Reasonably brief speeches will help those who will be waiting in the wings tonight to debate later topics.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Harper: After an enforced silence of nearly six years it is a sort of quasi-maiden speech that I am attempting to put over tonight, and I am pleased that an opportunity has been given to me so early in the life of this Parliament to talk about pollution.
I should like, first, to congratulate my two hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) on what I thought were two confident maiden speeches. We look forward to hearing them again and again in the short term from that side of the House, and not this.
Tonight I do not want to talk about environmental pollution as it affects the sea, the land, and the air, and I do not want to talk about aircraft noise or rivers, except one river in particular—and thereby hangs a tale, because that river runs right through the centre of the town in the biggest part of my constituency, Castleford. Castleford has had this basic problem ever since the mid-1940s and the early 1950s, and through the 1960s it has become progressively worse. A former Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Macmillan—then Minister of Housing and Local Government—realised the problem of pollution and set up a Committee to look into all the aspects of synthetic detergents, and to report. The Committee made an interim report on 16th February, 1954—about 16 years ago.
The following facts emerged from that Report. Owing to the use of synthetic detergents there was a rise in the incidence of dermatitis and other health hazards; a failure of some domestic equipment, especially plumbing equipment; and reduced operational efficiency at sewage works—something about which many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have spoken tonight. But the main thing that


came out of the Report was the excessive foaming in the rivers—especially the River Aire, which is the worst of all our rivers.
On 9th January, 1957 the then Minister of Housing, the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), set up a Standing Technical Committee on Synthetic Detergents. I shall not bother to read its terms of reference; they are there for anybody to see. The Committee had its first meeting on 25th February, so it lost no time. One of its terms of reference was to report progress at least once a year, but it did better than that. It first reported on 29th October of the same year. I am sorry to say, however, that that tempo has not been maintained.
Altogether there have been 11 progress reports, and in nearly every one Castle-ford has had a dishonourable mention. A large part of the reports in the complaints section has referred to Castleford On page 17 of its Fourth Report the Committee said:
We are satisfied that the new material
—that is, the softer-based detergent—
does not afford a complete solution of the problems arising from the use of synthetic detergents and that a further improvement of the synthetic detergent now in use or the development of a new active agent, is necessary.
The Committee can say that again, because that is a great problem. During this time the members of that Committee, who have done a valuable job, have swopped reports with their counterparts in Western Germany, where a similar committee has been set up, and also with committees in the United States concerned with this problem.
In order to add weight to this pollution problem the National Farmers' Union, which by any standards is not a negative union, said that this fall-out of foam from the River Aire was rendering grassland unfit for grazing. If grassland is unfit for grazing and somebody grazes it and we eat the end-product, it will be bad for everybody.
Castleford is by far the worst affected. All the reports seem to be devoted to Castleford. I came to the House in 1961, when my predecessor passed away. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts) asked Questions—in December, 1961 and February, 1962

—but got no further with those Questions. I had numerous letters from the borough council and the chamber of trade about this problem. I also asked Questions.
Eventually, on 24th October of that same year, 1961, the members of my council, along with the officials and the Secretary of the Committee on Synthetic Detergents, met the principal officers of the Ministry of Housing. We also, a few years later, in September, 1966, met the then Minister of Land and Natural Resources, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) with a deputation. I accompanied the deputation of officers and members. We did not get much further with that. A little later we met the Parliamentary Secretary, who is now the Opposition Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish); that was in May, 1967.
Of course, suggestions were made that Castleford should try to meet the problem itself by introducing sprays on the river below the weir which is the cause of all the threshing of the foam.
The Eighth Report of the Committee gives nearly a page to Castleford and refers to some striking photographs, some of which I have here. These have been taken specially and I have plenty more. They show the magnitude of the problem. The foam in one picture is seven or eight feet high—a bus could get lost in it, and probably did on one occasion. In another, the borough council workmen are trying to hose the stuff away, at great expense and inconvenience. A third photograph is even worse. It is making me despondent just to look at them, so I will put them aside. However, if the Minister would like these photographs, I shall be pleased to let him have them, because no one wants this problem to continue.
This was brought to a head last year when the rugby football team, after winning the cup at Wembley, arrived home to a massive reception—and the foam. They thought that it was December instead of May because white foam was flying about all over the place. My car was covered in it, and I had to wash the car. This is a problem. There were thousands of people out that day and


they were right in the middle of this storm of foam.
It is said—I cannot use the scientific expressions because that is like reading Chinese hieroglyphics—that when one unites the anonic and nonionic substances of these base detergents, that makes more foam and thrashes it up so that it flies about all over the place—

Mr. Walter Clegg: Hear, hear.

Mr. Harper: I am glad to have the assent of the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg). It is a pleasure to have his support on this matter.
When samples have been taken of the river, they have been found to be four or five times above the minimum levels. This should not be taken lightly.
The Ninth Report of the Committee on Synthetic Detergents made some valid points. Under H in its summary, it said:
The nonionic materials in use are not readily degradable
—in other words they cannot be readily gobbled up by the microbes in the river—
but from the information at present available, it appears that their employment for domestic purposes only does not affect significantly the production of foam on rivers: their industrial use in localised areas does, however, aggravate the foaming of some rivers.
In other words, the foaming is not caused by the housewife trying to get shirts whiter than white or using the blue whitener, but by the manufacturers upstream in the textile mills tipping all the effluent from the manufactured product into the river. This, of course, is the crux of the argument.
In paragraph 5 of the Tenth Report of the Committee, the Yorkshire and Humberside Sports Council, a very good body, said:
… that stringent controls should be approved to secure the treatment of certain textile trade effluents, so as to eliminate foaming on the Rivers Aire and Calder, or alternatively, that governmental financial assistance be made available to local authorities to enable them to remedy the foam nuisance. The situation in the Yorkshire area is discussed in paragraph 10 below
but I will not weary the House by quoting that, although it lends support to my argument.
I was glad to hear the suggestion that those who pour effluent into rivers should be made to pay. My town of Castleford is heavily rated and is faced with all the problems associated with the aftermath of the industrial revolution. We have a wonderful slum-clearance record, but this has, under strict financial control, placed a great burden on the rates. The foam problem is the straw that breaks the camel's back.
We have introduced sprays at the suggestion of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and I agree that officers from the Ministry have tried their best to be helpful. They have had meetings with people in Castleford, including the borough council, the British Water Board and the river authorities. Unfortunately, the sprays only mitigate the problem and do not provide a complete cure.
The final Report, the Eleventh, came out a few weeks ago. It points out that foaming has been greatly reduced. Unfortunately, I have not noticed it. The Report also says that since new base substances have been used in detergents the position is a little better. Although in 1969 the river was flowing quite freely, which helped to get the foam away, the new substances have not prevented piles of foam being blown all over the place.
The sprays help to break the foam up, but unfortunately they merely distribute the foam over a wider area. The result is that although we no longer have seven feet or eight feet high piles of foam, the same quantity of foam is spread further afield. It seems that we are fighting a losing battle, especially since detergents have increased in use by about one-third in the last six years. The sprays have had only partial success.
My local borough council is at its wit's end. It does not have a cure to the problem, apart from the possibility of lowering the level of the weir, but that would cost a great deal of money, which Castleford Borough Council does not have. The Council has made numerous requests for financial assistance to resolve this problem, but nobody seems to have taken any notice. We shall be asking the Minister to discuss this matter with us.
I know that you like poetry, Mr. Speaker, and at this time of the evening


a little poem is perhaps the right way to close one's speech. Sir Walter Scott wrote:
Like the Dew on the mountain,
Like the Foam on the River,
Like the Bubble on the Fountain,
Thou art gone, and forever.
Unfortunately, Sir Walter is not here today to rewrite a little of that rather sad quatrain.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker: I am happy to be able to start on a point of agreement with both my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) and the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. G. Johnson Smith). I join them in congratulating the two hon. Members who have just made their maiden speeches this evening. If I seem to utter the conventional tributes, I hope that they will accept that they are expressed with rather more than the conventional, traditional warmth. I am sure that the House will look forward to hearing from them again.
We all as new Members look forward with some apprehension to the ordeal of our maiden speech, believing that once we have it over and done with every subsequent experience will be easy. I do not want to discourage new Members by saying that it is just as bad every time we rise to make a speech in the House.
The hon. Member for East Grinstead gently chided some of my hon. Friends for introducing a polemical note into the debate, but they were only following the precedent established by preceding speakers, not least the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson), who made some comments about the changes in the structure of government following the change in Government. When he talks about the 10 Ministers who were responsible for pollution, or the control of pollution—perhaps the former way of putting it is the more accurate—he should bear in mind that in so far as they had any responsibility it was only incidental to their main Departmental functions. We know that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the Ministry responsible in some ways and in some degree for controlling the use of pesticides, herbicides, insecticides and so on, but it is hard to believe that it will put their control in the environmental context as

its first priority if the consequence is to diminish the growth of production and productivity in agriculture and the industries for which the Ministry is responsible. Likewise, we can see the difficulties of the Minister of Technology in this respect.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not trying to suggest that the Minister of Agriculture would allow the use of any pesticide, regardless of its effect, just because it was known to kill, say, greenfly? This responsibility is not incidental but crucial to the whole of his duties.

Mr. Walker: Every Minister must continually make decisions balancing various considerations. We should be naïve if we ignored the fact that a Minister will tend to see his success in terms of the primary responsibility of his Department. For example, he might be seeking an accolade for increasing the production of motor cars but at the same time be very conscious of the possible detrimental effect on the atmosphere of motor car exhaust emission. But, realising that the introduction of stringent regulations might impede the production of motor cars, he would be only human to tend to look for all the arguments why he should not introduce regulations and why he should seek to facilitate the production of motor cars.
No doubt it was this, among many other considerations, that guided my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister to appoint a senior Minister with responsibility for co-ordinating the duties of the various Departments in this respect, so that when they were involved in the collective business of decision making within the Government he could intervene at the appropriate stage to point out to the Ministers their responsibilities towards the improvement of the environment.
Out of respect for the hour and the pressures on hon. Members, I do not want to pursue that line. I agree with the point made by the hon. Gentleman and others that there is universal and growing concern about pollution of the environment, and no party has a monopoly of good intentions or virtue in this respect.
We all recognise, also, the contradictions with which we continually find ourselves confronted in this broad field, such


as the contradiction between the demand of hon. Members for motorways and our legitimate anxiety to preserve the countryside. We all want motorways, but we do not want them to go through our constituencies.
There is also the demand, repeatedly expressed, for growth in the production of solid smokeless fuels so that we may have clean air, but there is the conflict that presents us with the recognition that the very production of those fuels in itself adds to atmospheric pollution in the localities where the producer plants are situated. Because of such a development in the vicinity of my constituency, I am sharply aware of the kind of problem we are debating. For this reason, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. Hon. Members who have spoken have linked their constituency problems to the subject of the debate. This I think has enriched the debate because we bring immediate and direct experience of the problem into discussion.
If I may I will inject a small polemical point, which I hope will be the only point of political controversy. While both parties rightly reflected in the recent General Election campaign the growing concern about pollution—in their manifestoes and speeches—I thought it rather astonishing that the party which eschews instant government gave a pledge that its decisions will be based on a careful appraisal yet almost immediately on taking office gave approval to the establishment in the vicinity of my constituency of a solid smokeless fuel production plant.
It is a coal carbonisation plant which can be only detrimental to the general environment of my constituency and the surrounding area. The site where this plant is to be established is at Rossington in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Kelley) but it is situated within a mile or so of residential development which is expanding in my constituency. Because of the effect on the constituency I think it right to draw it to the attention of the Minister. I hope that the remarks I shall make will be borne in mind by the members of the Royal Commission.
I wonder whether the Royal Commission members have seen, or will look at, these coal carbonisation plants. I wonder

whether the Minister who made the decision to allow the establishment of this plant to go ahead has ever seen one and has seen the effects on the immediate area in which it is located. In the Doncaster area there are 10 of these plants already. They encircle my constituency within a 15-miles radius and consume annually 5¼ million tons of coal for conversion into smokeless fuel. This will add another quarter of a million tons in volume.
There is a background of what is reported to be a national shortage of solid smokeless fuel, a shortage assumed by some to be due to the over-rapid utilisation of North Sea gas and the consequent fall-off in the production of coal These plants take in coal to extract gas and make coke or a by-product, but with the coal carbonisation plant the whole thing is stood on its head. It produces coke with gas and tars as by-products, but they have to be consumed or disposed of in some way. The noxious gases in this type of plant are burned, with the result that the emission is converted into sulphur dioxide, SO2, which is becoming increasingly recognised as one of the most harmful constituents in atmospheric pollution. It is the threat of an emission of this into the atmosphere which is only part of my concern about the establishment of this plant.
It is cruelly ironic that the demand for cleaner air means that people in areas such as my constituency must suffer dirtier air than before. I accept that if we are to have solid fuels that burn more cleanly than ordinary fuel they must be produced somewhere; but it is a question of the relationship of the plant that produces it to the urban environment.
We all recognise the need for a home to have a lavatory, but nobody in his right mind would plan a home with a lavatory in the breakfast room or sitting room; it is put a reasonable distance away. My complaint is as to the wrong juxtaposition of this plant. It is an established fact that the Doncaster area is one of the worst in the country for respiratory diseases.
I should add that my home is situated in this area, so perhaps I should declare an interest in that sense and add to my declaration of interest by saying that my wife suffers from chronic bronchitis and asthma and I am therefore very alive to


the problem, which is likely to be intensified by an establishment of a plant such as this.
To add to the irony of the situation, in 1967 the Doncaster County Borough Corporation established the area as a smokeless zone. Then the Minister approved the establishment there of one of these solid smokeless fuel producing plants.
I earnestly beg the Minister to look at one of these plants. I am sure that he would never tolerate one in Bury St. Edmunds. So many speakers tonight have mentioned the legacy of the industrial revolution suffered by the North Country and South Wales, with the disfigurement and scarring of the land. Are we likely to be repeating this in the twentieth century in the aftermath of the technological revolution? Hon. Members with constituencies in the relatively salubrious South would not tolerate this for one moment.
Because we in the North were born with it, we accept passively things which would cause an upsurge of opinion in the South. If the people of the southern counties want to burn solid smokeless fuel, which must be produced somewhere—we recognise that it means carrying the fuel from the industrial North to the South—I do not see why the coal should not be transported to the South and converted down here. The reaction of the people down here would be powerfully adverse.
However, the Minister has made his decision. I understand that the decision can be revoked or varied only on a point of law. It seems that we must accept the fait accompli. As we must accept this burden, we are entitled to guarantees. The Minister's decision followed a public inquiry. The inspector laid down certain conditions. We are entitled to a guarantee that those conditions will be adhered to. It is not merely the emission of noxious effluent into the atmosphere about which I am concerned. There are problems of smoke and of the emission of dust and grit.
There is also the problem of amenity. One condition was that the site must be adequately screened by trees. Heaven knows how they will flourish in that polluted atmosphere, but let us try it none the less. I urge the Minister to ensure that the tree planting is done absolutely

in accordance with the inspector's recommendation. Let us not have to ask, three, four or five years hence, why the recommendations have not been carried out, when by that time all we shall have to look at will be an industrial plant which cannot be dismantled.
Next, there is the question of the water which will be used and its discharge into the nearby River Torne, a pleasant little stream. The inspector laid down requirements for its condition when discharged into the river. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will satisfy me—I do not ask him to reply now, because he could have had no warning that I should raise these matters—that the Minister's attention will be drawn to my anxiety that the water shall not be discharged in such a condition as to pollute the river.
The inspector made certain observations also about the low level of sulphur dioxide emissions. Instead of merely assuming that the technical forecasts based on the advice of the technical assessor will be substantiated, regardless of monitoring, I want there to be periodic monitoring to ensure that the company establishing the plant is living up to the expectations of the inspector and, hence, the Minister.
As I said before, we in the industrial North know only too well the consequences in social, economic, industrial and environmental terms of the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries. I hope that we shall not have insult added to injury by being compelled to bear the scars and disfigurement of the technological revolution now. If we are to have industrial development—and, heaven knows, we need it in order to provide the jobs—let it be accompanied by a little wisdom and foresight. Let us ensure that our descendants in the 21st century do not rebuke us in our graves, as we have so often rebuked those who went before us. Let us do our utmost to see that what we leave for our children and our children's children is a land at least as fit and clean as it was when we came into it. Indeed, let us do more and make sure that it is a better one.
By a curious coincidence my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) quoted some words from Sir Walter Scott. I say "by coincidence" because, without knowing that my hon. Friend would quote that passage, I had


intended to close by quoting some words of Sir Walter Scott in the opening paragraph of "Ivanhoe", that great historical novel centred on South Yorkshire:
In that pleasant district of merry England which is watered by the River Don, there existed in ancient times a large forest covering the greater part of the beautiful hills and valleys which lie between Sheffield and the pleasant town of Doncaster.
Hon. Members may smile, but I assure them that, in spite of its industrial environment Doncaster is today in many respects a pleasant town surrounded by pleasant countryside. I see it as part of my responsibility to appeal to the House to help us keep it that way.

9.54 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: I follow the happy custom of the House and congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) on their maiden speeches and the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) on, as he called it, his quasi-maiden speech. These speeches, based on deep personal experience, have added greatly to the value of this debate. I am sure that all hon. Members have welcomed the content of their speeches and the grace with which they were delivered.
Like my hon. Friends the Members for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), Woking (Mr. Onslow), Esher (Mr. Mather) and East Grinstead (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) and the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), I wish to debate the problem of aircraft noise. To me it is significant that three Members with constituencies around Gatwick Airport have all come to the House today to voice the growing resentment about aircraft noise felt by the people they represent.
Aircraft noise is one of the major forms of pollution of the environment and it is growing rapidly. I hope that the Royal Commission will help to bring it under control and that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), who now, as Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, has responsibility for protecting the environment, will tackle the problem of aircraft noise with his customary energy and resourcefulness. I welcome his appointment. But, I have

been depressed that for most of the debate there has been no spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench. I am glad that there is one now.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will say how he hopes to avoid overlapping in this task with the President of the Board of Trade who has a statutory duty to control aircraft noise. There could be some advantage in divided responsibility in a case such as this when the same Ministry is responsible for promoting air travel and, at the same time, for controlling the unpleasant side effects of it. There could be an advantage here to have, as a touchstone, a Minister independent of that Ministry to pull it up when its work threatens pollution of the environment. We must watch the development of these two responsibilities side by side and hope that they will result in greater, and not less, protection of the public. I hope that the Royal Commission will accept a major responsibility for aircraft noise and will seek a decision from Parliament on where its own responsibilities for aircraft noise end and where those of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and of the President of the Board of Trade begin.
Many of my constituents living in the neighbourhood of Gatwick are already being battered by aircraft noise day and night. Some people who find themselves disturbed in this way are beginning to leave the areas on the grounds that they can no longer stand the battering. The volume of air traffic in the area is increasing fast. At Gatwick there are already far more night jet flights than there are at Heathrow. My constituents, together with many people from neighbouring constituencies, have demanded again and again that there should be a limit on night jet flights which is no higher than that at Heathrow, namely, 3,500 during the summer. So far, in spite of all the petitions and visitations to the Board of Trade, no limit has been set, although the former President of the Board of Trade gave a promise a year ago that night jet flights at Gatwick would be limited for the tourist season in 1971.
I hope that the Royal Commission will help to ensure that the control of aircraft noise is made a major factor in the operation of airports. It should also accept


a special responsibility for securing control of noise when there are proposals to expand existing airports or to develop new airports. The Roskill Commission is a case in point.
My constituents now face demands—and this is a new situation—by the British Airports Authority for a tremendous expansion of Gatwick—an expansion so rapid that it is expected that by 1980 Gatwick will carry as much traffic as Heathrow now does; and all this at an airport lying in the Metropolitan Green Belt, although it had been decided at an inquiry in 1954 that Gatwick should be developed only as a minor, diversionary airport, and specific undertakings were given to that effect.
Since then, Gatwick has grown very fast, but this recent plan by the Authority for expansion is a clear attempt to develop Gatwick as a substitute for London's third airport. I was distressed by the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) for this concept. He and I agree about many things, but about this we shall have a long wrangle, both inside and outside the House.

Mr. Onslow: I am equally distressed to hear that this is so. May I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) that we can make common cause, which is always more profitable, if we join in pressing that the rate of development of Gatwick should be slowed down by the exclusion from it of the "candyfloss" inclusive tour traffic, which is not entitled to expect to be flown off the ground within the range of London when it would find it possible to be flown from airports at Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester and Liverpool?

Sir G. Sinclair: This is a proposal which will not be universally welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Also, It would take something to persuade the airline operators to move from the airports from which they are now operating.
The proposal for the rapid expansion of Gatwick is meeting with growing resistance from those who will be affected by the increasing disturbance of the environment by aircraft noise. We hope that the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution will take up with vigour the

growing national threat of aircraft noise and will insist that any major new airports in Britain shall, because of the factor of aircraft noise, be situated on the coast so that aircraft may arrive and depart on routes mainly over the sea.
It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for Woking to say that this will not butter any parsnips, if that was his phrase, or will not bring relief to those who hope to be free of aircraft noise. He asks us to pin our faith entirely on the advent of quieter aero-engines. But why should we not pin our faith on both measures? Even if we have quieter aircraft engines, the din of a major international airport will still be considerable in the whole environment of the airport.
I should like to warn the Parliamentary Secretary—and I hope that he will pass this on to the Board of Trade—that people living around major airports are developing their organisation of protest, encouraged by the pioneering efforts of those who frustrated the stupid siting of a major airport at Stansted, to resist the further increase of aircraft noise especially when they believe that such increases are unnecessary and can be avoided without prejudicing the national interest.
Certainly those of my constituents who live round Gatwick believe that there is no need to have a major expansion of an international airport in the Green Belt and in a heavily populated area. They believe that the way for the future is to site major airports on the coast. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will make it among the first of his duties to encourage such a trend in the siting of new airports.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Ted Fletcher: May I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) on the occasion of his maiden speech. It was an ideal maiden speech. He referred to his predecessor, a man greatly renowned in the House, and to his constituency and he also made a contribution to our debate on pollution. We look forward with a great deal of pleasure to listening to him in future.
We have had a wide-ranging discussion on all aspects of pollution. I want to focus attention on what may seem a parochial matter concerning my constituency. I do not, however, do this


in any parochial sense because I am trying to highlight the difficulties which local authorities and individuals find when confronted with the problem of pollution. In Darlington we have a river known as the River Skerne flowing through the town. It passes the new town hall, opened a few weeks ago by Princess Anne. When the town hall is landscaped this river will make a beautiful contribution to the landscaping of the town hall. It flows through the South Park in Darlington, a beautiful park frequented by thousands of citizens, and finds its way to Croft, where it joins the Tees.
This is a beautiful river but polluted. According to the Northumbrian River Authority, as a dry-water flow it contains more than 50 per cent. of sewage and trade effluents. This has caused much concern among the citizens of Darlington, who are campaigning through the Civic Society and other bodies to end the pollution of the River Skerne. This pollution was highlighted a few weeks ago when thousands of fish were found dead down river as it enters the Tees. It was found by the Northumbrian River Authority to be due to the fact that coolant was accidentally discharged by a local firm into the river.
The Authority suggested that the firm should be responsible for restocking the river at a cost of £725. A few weeks ago on 28th June thousands of other fish were found floating dead on the river. In a letter to me the Authority says:
It has not been possible, notwithstanding exhaustive inquiries carried out since that date, to establish the source of this mortality which it would appear is an isolated instance of pollution from some point within the urbanised and industrial catchment area of the River Skerne.
The Tory-controlled local authority says that it is not responsible for the pollution of the river, claiming that the responsibility belongs to the river authority. It cannot sustain that argument because it has a representative on the authority, which comprises eleven representatives of local authorities, and in addition it makes a substantial financial contribution to the authority.
The authority says that it is doing everything in its power to discover the reasons for the pollution. It points out

that a new activated-sludge treatment plant is being established at Fishburn, that at Aycliffe the sewage disposal works is being extended, and that the Darlington Corporation outer sewer running through Darlington, which is defective, is shortly to be reconstructed.
Although these steps may make a contribution towards ending some of the pollution, the citizens of Darlington feel that it might be simpler to find out who is discharging refuse into the River Skerne. Is it not possible to find out which are the 28 or 30 firms discharging surplus refuse into the river and to stop them? This seems to many people to be the simple solution.
Many local citizens are asking where the responsibility lies. Under the provisions of the Water Resources Acts, 1963 and 1968, we set up 27 river authorities for England and Wales. Darlington is, of course, in the Northumberland River Authority catchment area. The Minister of Housing has only direct control over the Water Resources Board, whereas the river authorities which have been set up by local orders under the 1963 Act are subject only to a general direction from the Ministry. The Water Resources Board is financed from central Government funds, but river authorities are financed by local authorities.
The citizens of Darlington want to know to whom the river authorities are responsible. Are they responsible to the local authorities who finance their work? As far as I can discover from researches in the Library of the House, these river authorities do not issue an annual report. Nobody seems to know what they do, unless a representative happens to report back to the local council. We need public accountability. We wish to know whether these river authorities are too complacent.
Surely it would be possible for a river authority to establish a register of firms which discharge refuse into our rivers. Having established this register, firms should be asked whether there is some alternative method of disposing of the waste. To carry out this task we need a Minister with overall responsibility in this House, rather than that these functions should be discharged by perhaps the Minister of Agriculture, the Home Secretary and other Ministers.
We have not only to consider the danger to environment but to recognise that there is a great deal of good will in our community which seeks to get rid of pollution and to improve the environment. But this good will is being frustrated by the machinery which has been imposed. This machinery in some instances stands between the public and a solution of its problems, but I suggest that there is a great deal of complacency over the local problem of making the River Skerne pure. With a little effort it should be possible to decide how many firms are polluting the river.
If the river authority has not sufficient staff, it is the duty of local authorities to increase their financial contribution to enable it to carry out this work. Unless we are prepared to be more vigorous in approaching these semiautonomous bodies and in making them responsive to our needs, the further off becomes the solution. Local authorities are very close to the people who elect them and local councillors are responsive to local citizens. But the river authority, which embraces 11 authorities, is a little remote, and we want to know where responsibility lies. They are rather like Mahomet's coffin, suspended between heaven and hell without visible means of support. They do not appear to be responsible to anyone except in a fragmented way.
I am asking whether the Government can assert their authority and induce the river authorities to shed their complacency and try, in the first instance, to keep a register of firms which are polluting our rivers. Secondly, are the Government prepared to give river authorities the power to fine firms which pollute rivers? We all know that the owners of ships can be fined for discharging oil into the sea, but firms can discharge effluent into rivers without being reprimanded. Finally, in European Conservation Year, is it possible for the Minister to persuade river authorities to let the public know what is happening, perhaps by publishing annual reports, so that there can be communication between those who want to clean up our environment and those who have the power to get on with the job?
My few remarks may seem parochial in character. However, I hope that they

will focus attention on the fact that there is a great deal of good will in our towns and cities to combat the problems of pollution, but that this good will is being frustrated. If it works at all, it seems to work very slowly. I hope especially that the Government will look at the situation of the Northumbrian River Authority with a view to inducing it to get on with the job of cleaning up Darlington's River Skerne.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. David Clark: I feel privileged to address this House as the hon. Member for Colne Valley, and I begin by saying how conscious I am of the radical traditions of my constituency. I feel that my constituents would approve of this subject for my maiden speech, because I believe that pollution will be one of the major political issues in Britain and throughout the world in the 1970s.
As far back as 1895, the Colne Valley constituency was contested by that eminent trade union leader, Tom Mann. Almost to the day, 63 years ago Victor Grayson captured the seat and the imagination of working people throughout Britain. In more recent years, the constituency has been represented by such illustrious names as Philip Snowden and the beloved Glenvil Hall. I am conscious of the historic mantle which I inherit.
In a sense, I am probably unique in that on these benches sit two hon. Members who formerly represented Colne Valley. I refer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). It is widely known, too, that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was born and spent his early years in Colne Valley.
It is not only an historic constituency politically. It also has a long industrial tradition. In times past, the Pennine valleys were covered with trees. They were gradually cleared as the Yorkshire woollen industry got under way and we began to graze sheep. As the woollen industry emerged, they saw the appearance of mill towns, with their chimneys and mechanisation. The woollen industry remains. It makes a great contribution to our national economy and our exports.
In spite or being an historic industrial constituency, it is also a large rural constituency. It suffers from industrial obsolescence and mining dereliction. In many ways, the problems referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypridd (Mr. John) and Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) are also faced in the industrial areas of Colne Valley. It is an area to the north-east of Manchester and to the north-west of the Sheffield, Doncaster area of about 20 to 25 miles wide which suffers severely from atmospheric pollution. There are very few trees. In fact, there is very little vegetation apart from the sparse cotton grass. Yet, under the peat, one can find the remains of trees and vegetation. But the problem remains that trees and vegetation grow on that land with difficulty.
The smokeless zones to the east and to the west have helped somewhat. Although the smokeless zones have taken the carbon out of the air, we are still left with the sulphur dioxide. This may be increasing, not decreasing, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker).
The Forestry Commission in 1964 commissioned a fairly wide study of the area and came to the conclusion that trees would grow only with difficulty, because the sulphur dioxide was so acute that it was killing the trees. It seems a sad fact that unless we can prove that SO2 is severely deleterious to human beings we are unable to get action.
It seems that the tall chimneys in the greater Manchester area which belch out sulphur dioxide keep Manchester fairly clear of the SO2, but they do not keep my constituency free of it. The prevailing winds from the south-west blow the sulphur dioxide away from the tops of the chimneys across to the Pennine Hills and then it falls with the rain. This causes severe hardship. The Forestry Commission has estimated that wire fencing in the Hebden Bridge and Colne Valley areas corrodes five times faster than that on the North Yorkshire Moors.
The facts about the amount of sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere are not really known. In a letter from the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council, dated 13th April, I get the information:

… indications are that the level of sulphur dioxide in some parts of the Pennines at least is not declining and may indeed be increasing
Yet, a letter seven days later from the Forestry Commission says that there have been
spectacular smoke reductions following applications of the Clean Air Act but far smaller reductions in SO2.
Smokeless zones do not help areas like Colne Valley. We are in a vicious circle. Because there is no vegetation on the hillsides the soil is rapidly getting run down. We sometimes forget that the earth is a living body. The peat is getting worn away and we are left with untidy and unsightly rocky screeds.
How do we break out of this vicious circle? Doctor Weisser, a German, suggested in 1961 that in areas such as the Manchester conurbation and other large cities it would be advisable to plant trees. He was advocating that trees would purify the air not only organically but also physically. He calculated that spruces are capable of arresting approximately 12 tons, scots pines 14 tons and beeches 18 tons of dust per acre. This is the physical filtering. On top of that we have the organic filtering of the trees absorbing the polluted air and cleansing it before exhaling it.
But we are again in the vicious circle that if we plant trees we must have an economic return. I believe that it is problems like this which the Royal Commission will have to look into and solve.
It seems apparent that the problems which I encounter in my constituency are to be found in many others. We have the problem of derelict coal mines. We have the problem of polluted rivers. We have the problem of polluted air. I am pleading for more money to be spent on this worth while project. I suppose I am regarded as one of the younger generation. I think that we of the younger generation can perhaps forgive our elders for their political mistakes, but I do not think that we shall forgive the elder members of the community if they do not help us to get rid of the scars of pollution.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: It is my privilege to congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) on his maiden speech. It is a


privilege which I have never been able to exercise before in my many years in the House. It is a particular privilege to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on a memorable maiden speech on a subject which is very dear to my heart, and to the hearts of many hon. Members, but which often gets forgotten when we are discussing what some of us would describe as the great issues of the day. This is a great issue of the day, and the hon. Gentleman was right to say so.
The hon. Gentleman paid a graceful tribute to his distinguished predecessors, and he went on to speak with sincerity and real understanding of the problem which besets the area which he represents. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to tackle at the outset the problem of preserving life itself before he set about any of the other problems in his constituency, and I hope that we shall have him as an ally on this subject on many future occasions. I am sure that when he speaks on this and on any other subject he will be a most welcome addition to our debates.
I do not want to detain the House for very long. Pollution is an ugly word, and we have heard it used all too often tonight, but the fact that so many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate shows that there is tremendous interest in the subject, both in the House and outside, and that the House of Commons is determined to tackle the problem in this Parliament.
The procedure on which we hang this debate is that there is a Royal Commission in being, and that a sum of money is being voted to help it in its work, but a Royal Commission solves nothing by its acts. It may produce valuable suggestions, but it does not of itself solve the problem. I hope that the Royal Commission will tackle the problem in the widest sense. Many aspects of the problem have been ventilated this evening. The Commission

must tackle the problem of air, earth and water, as they are all polluted in one way or another. The problem of noise has also been mentioned, and I hope that the Commission will bear that in mind and take into consideration the stress which that noise produces.
I hope that the Royal Commission will make many helpful suggestions about the way in which Government Departments and other public agencies can collaborate the one with the other to see that one does not frustrate the work of the other, because all too often the good work which is done in one direction is undone in another.
The Royal Commission may suggest a Ministerial or Government structure which is the better able to tackle the problem, but a good beginning could be made now without the help of the Commission, and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us a bit about the ways in which Government Departments are able, or intend, to see that their own activities, or activities for which they have a responsibility, do not frustrate each other, and make sure that at the outset of this new Parliament, before the Royal Commission has made any recommendations, a start is made on dealing with the problem.
I am not asking for instant government. I do not ask my hon. Friend to unfold a new Ministerial structure. That may not be what is required, but what my hon. Friend can do this evening is to give an assurance that the Government are aware of the grave nature of the problem, and perhaps give us just a little glimpse of what the Government have in mind for a Ministerial structure, or an agency of some kind within the Government, which will ensure that all Government Departments are aware of the problem and do not frustrate each other's actions. I hope that a start can be made on dealing with the problem before the Royal Commission reports.

10.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): By any measure this has been an excellent debate to which, without exception, 16 hon. Members on both sides of the House have made most interesting and valuable contributions. The debate has been distinguished by no fewer than four maiden speeches—two Welsh, one Scottish and one English. It must be something of a record that we have had three Celtic maiden speeches in a debate on the Consolidated Fund. I sincerely congratulate all four hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray), who was the first of our maiden speakers, spoke eloquently of his constituency, and I was particularly touched by his concern for the solitary trout in the river which he described going through it. I was recently at the Commonwealth Games. I did not see the advertisement to which he referred, but I congratulate him on a very worthy maiden speech.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) delivered what I am sure the House will agree was a model maiden speech. It was brief, it was lucid and it was sincere. I am sure that the whole House will want to hear him many times again. The same goes for the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies). For his predecessor, who bears my name, the whole House had the highest possible regard. He follows a great Parliamentarian and a great servant of this country. The hon. Member for Llanelly spoke not only of industry but of the gunnery range with which he suggested his constituency is threatened, and although I shall not be able to answer his points on that matter I shall gladly write to him as soon as I am able.
Finally of the maiden speakers, we had the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark), who also spoke with the utmost sincerity and conviction. I am sure that to all four hon. Members the House will wish a good and long future with us.
For the rest, the debate has illustrated the immense amount of interest that them is in this subject. That so many hon. Members have contributed in so many different ways illustrates what a

wide-ranging and even discursive subject the pollution of the environment can be. We had extensive references to exhaust fumes, aircraft noise, penguins and peregrine falcons, lorry parks, cirrus clouds, the movement of the ice cap, and synthetic detergents, and no fewer than two quotations from Sir Walter Scott.
The House will appreciate that it is virtually impossible for me to reply to all those diverse points tonight, but wherever possible I shall write to hon. Members on the constituency issues which they have raised. But on one thing we can be sure; the House of Commons tonight has done its job—first in reflecting the rising concern of the country over the threat of pollution of our environment and, secondly, in giving a lead, by way of hon. Members' efforts, to looking at the problem seriously and making practical and sensible proposals how best to try to tackle it. I doubt whether a Royal Commission has ever received from one short debate so much profound and eloquent advice. I am sure that both the Chairman and the members of the Royal Commission will take carefully into account what hon. Members have said.
The Government take the whole question of pollution with the utmost seriousness. Indeed, any responsible Administration is bound to regard the care of the environment as one of the most important—in some ways it is the most vital—of all our social services. It is important because our standard of living and, more important, the quality of the life we lead are inseparable from, to a large extent are a function of, the physical context in which we work and bring up our families. It is vital because without clean air we choke and without abundant and clean water we die.
I do not say that a man cannot enjoy a full and rich life in a grimy and ugly environment. Manifestly, that would be untrue. But, increasingly, as our lives grow more mechanised, our cities more congested, our leisure more pre-packaged and mass produced, there is a growing awareness that nature, in the widest sense of the word, is man's most precious possession. I think that we are coming to understand that the physical world is not, as we once thought, indestructible, but that it can be and is being destroyed.
Already there is a dawning consciousness in this country that, as a nation and perhaps as a species, man has only one world to pollute. If this one is ruined, then, at least in this life, we have no other. A deep and uneasy awareness of this fact is now beginning to make itself felt among all sections of our population, but especially among young people, When I was talking to a group of youngsters the other day, one of them said, "Pop equals power". He was referring not to popular music but to population. He was making the point, which has been made this evening, that it is simply the growth of people and goods that itself is producing so much more pollution which needs to be handled each year.
The Government share the country's growing concern for our environment. That is why, in the Queen's Speech, we undertook to intensify the drive to remedy past damage to the environment and to do our best to safeguard the beauty of the British countryside and seashore for the future.
By "the environment" we mean not only the countryside and our incomparable coastal scenery: we mean, and we must mean, the air we breathe, the water we drink and wash with and, not least, our urban environment, including the quality of our housing and the amenities of our built-up areas. Many of these older built-up areas are in urgent need of improvement if the quality of life of those who live in them is, as we all hope, to be improved.
Several hon. Members referred in detail to the problems of derelict land. But it is not enough in my view to speak only of our derelict areas and the eyesores of yesterday. Equally, we have to ensure, by intelligent urban planning, that the new housing estates and the new industrial areas which are springing up all over the country do not in the process destroy or disfigure the beauty of our rural areas and are also in themselves pleasant places in which to live.
The detail and much of the speed at which these things can be achieved are subjects which are far too wide to be dealt with in tonight's debate, but because several hon. Members have raised it, I should perhaps say something about the organisation of Government agencies concerned

in the fight against pollution. Both under the former Labour Government and at present, executive responsibilities for the control of particular forms of pollution rest with those Departments which have the most closely related functions.
For example, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which is concerned with environmental health, water supplies, water management, sewage and refuse disposal and so on, naturally looks after clean air and water pollution. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is naturally concerned with the use of agricultural chemicals and the protection of fisheries. In Scotland and Wales direct responsibility lies with the Secretaries of State.
In October, 1969, the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), whom I would have liked to have seen in his place tonight, was given responsibility for co-ordinating the work of executive Departments and he was assisted in this work by a small scientific and administrative staff attached to the Cabinet Office, where it is still in operation.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his review of Government, is giving close consideration to how best to co-ordinate Ministerial responsibilities in this, as in all other, spheres. In the meantime, normal arrangements have been made to ensure that there is the necessary inter-Departmental co-ordination on pollution, pending the completion of this review. As soon as it is possible to do so, I am sure that the Prime Minister will be advising the House, probably in the autumn.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Until the review is completed, which Minister will be responsible for initiating any activity in which it might be desired to engage for the purpose of, for example, comparing problems between Departments? Secondly, when is the review likely to be completed and when are we likely to know its outcome?

Mr. Griffiths: I said, in answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point, that a statement would be made as soon as possible.
I was going on to say—this answers his first question—that in the meantime I can assure the House that the various


Departments, many of which I have mentioned, will continue to exercise their executive functions. Normal arrangements have been made to ensure that there is the necessary co-ordination between them.
I can also assure the House that the Royal Commission is continuing its valuable work, under Sir Eric Ashby, and that the Government are considering most carefully the many valuable proposals—there were about 30—contained in the White Paper published earlier this year.
I do not think the House would expect me, at this early stage and in view of the review which is under way, to give anything beyond a general welcome to the proposals made in the White Paper, though I shall be mentioning some of them during my remarks.
The House will be glad to know that in one sphere, the pollution of the sea by oil, we have already given effect to one of the White Paper's suggestions by reintroducing last week the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, which will give effect in the United Kingdom to the international agreements reached by I.M.C.O., the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton), whom I regret not to see in his place, raised the subject of the East Grimstead chalk inquiry, and I well understand how he feels.

Mr. Hordern: Did my hon. Friend refer to East Grinstead?

Mr. Griffiths: No. I referred to East Grimstead, with an "m" not an "n".
I can only say in reply to the points raised by my hon. Friend that the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), dealt with these points in an Adjournment debate recently. I have nothing to add, except to point out that the East Grimstead planning case has been fully considered by the Parliamentary Commissioner and by the Council on Tribunals. It has also been the subject of three separate debates in the House, and my hon. Friend in any case has referred certain aspects of the matter

yet again to the Parliamentary Commissioner. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that in the circumstances the best thing we can do is to wait for the Parliamentary Commissioner's report.
I turn now to the three aspects of pollution on which I want to concentrate this evening—noise, clean water and pollution of the air we breathe.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the Minister say at least something more on the subject of dereliction?

Mr. Griffiths: I am very much afraid that I shall not be able to deal in any detail with dereliction tonight, simply because it is a subject that proliferates in so many different directions. So many hon. Members have contributed to the debate on that matter that I think it would be better if I give more detailed consideration to the points made about dereliction, and I will gladly write to the hon. Gentleman about them. I think that the balance of the debate has been directed to the problems of noise, clean air and clean water, and I propose to deal with those primarily.
On noise, we have had interesting contributions from a number of my hon. Friends who are concerned above all about Gatwick. We had further contributions on the whole question of aircraft engines—the question of retro-fits—and there were seven points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather). We shall certainly study the seven palliatives that he put forward in his interesting speech.
My own attitude to noise is not least conditioned by the fact that I think my constituency has the second largest number of aircraft movements in the country—more than Gatwick, for with the two American air bases of Lakenheath and Mildenhall and the very large R.A.F. base in Honington we manage to combine in West Suffolk an air traffic pattern and number of movements second only to London Airport. So I am very conscious of the problems of noise, and I accept that of all forms of pollution this is the one about which the general public is most immediately and most painfully aware.
We are all being subjected in our daily lives to increasing interference and


annoyance from noise. It is a by-product—some say an inevitable by-product—of economic progress and new technical developments, but to many people it is an increasingly unacceptable by-product. I am glad that my hon. Friends the Members for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), East Grinstead (Mr. G. Johnson Smith) and Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) have stressed that this evening.
There is, unfortunately, no single or dramatic stroke of policy by which we can hope to get the better of noise. The sources of noise are multifarious, from the macro-noises of aircraft traffic and heavy industry down to such local vexations as the next door neighbour's motor mower. Noise is a nuisance which unfortunately presents its own peculiar problems, and each must be studied and tackled in a different way.
But there are two broad approaches to protecting people from noise. One is to keep people and noise apart and the other is to reduce the noise at its source. Separating people from noise can be achieved either by the erection of barriers to shut out existing noises—for example, by giving grants for sound-proofing houses, or by physically keeping noisy activities away from human habitations. To some extent this can and should be achieved by the careful siting of major roads or, in the case of aircraft, by minimum noise routeing, by noise-abatement take-off and landing procedures and perhaps for Heathrow, which presents the biggest problem, by the imposition of curbs on night jet movements in the summer.
But the other approach probably holds the greater hope for the future, and that is to cut down the noise itself. Quite clearly, we must seek to design and to introduce as quickly as possibly quieter vehicles and aircraft. Scientific standards governing noise of new vehicles were incorporated in Regulations introduced in 1968. I am glad to say that they are having art immediate and beneficial effect on the noise levels of new vehicles coming on to our roads. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) said that cars exported to Germany had to have quieter engines than those allowed to be driven on British roads. I must tell him that as of now his information is incorrect. The new Regulations, which came into

force I think, last April, set maxima for noise which are at the same level as those now observed in Europe. The further tightening of these standards is at present being discussed within the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and will go further than anything that has been proposed in any other European country. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that on that limited point we are making some worth while progress.
Earlier this year the United Kingdom was the first country to introduce an international aircraft noise certification scheme which was recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. This lays down noise standards for future types of subsonic jet airliner. This will mean that the new types, when they come into operation, will be roughly half as noisy as current types. The importance of these new measures lies less in their short-term effects, I accept—although these will not be negligible—they lie mainly in the prospect of progressive lessening of noise in years to come.
I will say a word about the noise problem at airports. The Roskill Commission is doing important pioneering work on the implications of noise for the siting of new airports. I am sure that it will take note of the views expressed today, in particular those by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham. It is only right to be blunt about this: one has to admit that there is no way in which large numbers of modern aircraft can be flown into and out of a major airport without inflicting noise nuisance on at least some people. This has to be faced. The object, of course, must be to inflict as little nuisance as possible on as few people as possible, subject always to the overriding demands of flight safety.
It is a regrettable fact that the pattern of existing settlement around our major airports is such that relief to some almost always has to be won by increasing disturbance to others and the problem becomes one of how to strike a balance between acute disturbance to a few and moderate disturbance to many. This process, as the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) knows well, necessarily involves a great deal of trial and error and in the end no single answer is right.
I say a word about Gatwick since so many hon. Members have mentioned it. We are fully aware of the long-term proposals put forward by the British Airports Authority for the expansion of Gatwick Airport. These proposals are however at an informal stage and have been publicised at that stage with a view to seeking the views of all those concerned, in particular the views of the county councils which will be affected. It would therefore be premature to decide how these proposals are to be handled if and when—and there is no certainty about this—they are eventually embodied in a formal planning application. Until they are embodied in such a formal planning application, there is nothing which could formally be referred to a public inquiry commission. All that the Minister has before him at present is a comparatively minor proposal for an extension of the main runway.

Sir G. Sinclair: Not comparatively minor.

Mr. Griffiths: My hon. Friend is entitled to his view. What is minor to some is major to others. I hope that he will accept that all that we have before us is the proposal for the extension of a runway and not some massive proposals for the aggrandisement of Gatwick as a whole. This proposal for extending the main runway is to be the subject of a public inquiry in November.

Mr. Hordern: Although the draft land use application which has been presented by the Airports Authority is not strictly speaking a firm proposal as such, nevertheless the implications and side effects of such proposals, if they were carried out, would be considerable. Our fear is that if the Roskill Commission reports in the meantime about the suitability of a place for the third London airport the subsequent information which would be derived from a proper and independent commission reporting on the development of the land use proposals would by then have been overtaken by events. That is why we want to have a special commission of inquiry into the Airports Authority's proposals on the land use proposals now.

Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point of view, though he is putting two hypothetical points to me. The

first is that, if the Airports Authority's land use proposals—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It helps the Official Reporters and the debate if the Minister addresses his hon. Friend through the Chair.

Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend is putting to me two hypothetical possibilities. One is that the Airports Authority's land use scheme now being discussed is to become fact or is to become a hard proposal. This is not yet the case. It may never be the case. At the moment it is simply a talking point. Second, my hon. Friend postulates what would happen if the Roskill Commission were to arrive at certain conclusions. He will not expect me to anticipate either of these hypothetical conclusions.
The Government recognise the strong public interest in any long term proposals for expanding Gatwick and we see the need for any such proposals to be considered in the light of local and regional implications. We shall have in mind the recent South East Joint Planning Study. We shall be keeping in continuous touch with the county councils concerned. If and when proposals for expanding Gatwick are put to us—they have not been put to us as yet—we will take into account local authority views and the views of anyone else concerned, including my hon. Friends in every case, in deciding how the relevant planning issues should then be handled.

Mr. G. Johnson Smith: I do not indulge in nit picking with my hon. Friend, but there is a proposal for the expansion of Gatwick Airport. The extension of the runway is regarded as part of the expansion. I know that it is a separate proposal from the other one and it is not regarded by any of those who live in the area or by anybody associated with the local authorities as a minor proposal. I want to get that point clear to my hon. Friend, because it is an important proposal designed to expand the airport.

Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I will bear that point closely in mind.
While on the broad question of aircraft noise, may I say a few words about the question of supersonic boom. We intend


drawing up proposals for the banning of commercial supersonic flights over the United Kingdom as was envisaged in the White Paper, "The Protection of the Environment". However, we shall—I think rightly—consider comments from all interested parties on these proposals before finally deciding what action to take.
Before I leave the question of noise, may I at least give the assurance that in the coming months the Government will be reviewing the whole range of noise abatement measures. In this we shall continue to have the advice and assistance of the Noise Advisory Council, at whose meeting I was privileged to take the chair this afternoon. In the normal way the deliberations of the Noise Advisory Council are confidential, but I think it worth while telling hon. Members who have raised various points that such questions as noise from motor cycles, future types of aircraft, including vertical takeoff, and questions of retrofit are certainly very much in the mind and on the agenda of the Advisory Council.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Can my hon. Friend say whether noise meters were also discussed? These are crucial to the effective introduction of the motor Regulations.

Mr. Griffiths: I cannot tell my hon. Friend precisely what was on the agenda at a meeting which took place this afternoon and was confidential. I take his point and I think it very likely that it will not be overlooked.
We cannot undertake to find a new and hitherto unnoticed solution. The broad lines of attack on noise problems are already well known. What matters in the end will depend on the results of the extensive programme of research in which the Government, the research councils and private industry are already engaged. I assure the House, however, that we are fully alive to this problem and we shall carefully consider any and all proposals which the Noise Advisory Council may put to us.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to say a word about my point that aircraft noise is distinct from all other noises, because in the case of every other noise it is possible for the citizen who is gravely affronted to take legal action, whereas in the case of

aircraft noise it is not? Is the possibility that this bar might be removed among the thinking of either the Aircraft Noise Council or the Government?

Mr. Griffiths: I cannot answer that question in detail but will tell the hon. Member that we take note of what he has said.
I turn now to water pollution, which is another area on which many hon. Members have commented. The major source of pollution of our fresh water is effluent, from homes and from industry. Intermittent but sometimes severe pollution is caused by run-off from urban roads, for example, following heavy rain. This run-off of surface water can be both highly polluting itself or the cause of pollution, because some foul sewers—and most of the older sewers carry both foul and surface water—discharge crude sewage through the storm overflows. Pollution can also be caused by run-off from agricultural land. Fertilisers are the main contributors, although they do not as yet present a serious problem.
There is always the risk, too, of accidental pollution of water from spillages of oil and from chemicals. All these sources will produce greater polluting loads in the future. The Water Resources Board has estimated that the consumption of water will double by the end of the century and this, in turn, will mean doubling at least our sewage treatment capacity over the next 25 to 30 years. I say "at least" because standards of sewage treatment will often have to be higher than at present to maintain even our present water quality.
Increased urban development and new motorways will also increase surface water run-off. The development of intensive agriculture will mean more stock and more organic wastes to be disposed of. Pollution will also increase in variety, especially pollution from chemicals, and some new pollutants, too, are likely to present special problems.
The problem before us, therefore, is substantial, but, to put its dimensions into perspective, I should remind the House that natural water itself is never pure. Indeed, if it were, it would not be satisfactory for drinking. Nor will any stream have travelled far before it, too, contains decaying matter and dead organisms. Fortunately, rivers, to a large


extent, are self-purifying. A clean river which is polluted at one point can recover downstream.
So the crucial question in water pollution is largely one of volume, and how much organic or industrial waste is disposed of into the river in proportion to its water flow. This has close relevance to the point made by the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper). If the amount of organic waste is large in relation to the river's flow, a shortage of dissolved oxygen develops, which is harmful to some vegetable and to all animal life, game fish being especially susceptible. Incidentally, if the dissolved oxygen is reduced to zero, which can happen, the self-purification of a river stops, and it may itself stink.
In the same way, many kinds of industrial wastes are toxic above certain concentrations. Oil, too, is another great enemy. It can reduce the self-purifying properties of fresh water and seriously impair amenities.
I have stated these things as bluntly as I can to the House because, faced with these pollutants and with the mounting problem of providing more water for our people and keeping it clean for washing and drinking, we have a problem before us. Nevertheless, Britain, I am glad to say, has a record of preventing water pollution by the control of sewage and trade effluent discharges that is second to none in the industrial world. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East, will note what I have said.
We have comprehensive control of river pollution under the Rivers Acts of 1951 and 1961. It is an offence in this country to cause or knowingly permit any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to enter a stream or to discharge trade or sewage effluent into a stream without the consent of the river authority. There is, however, no comprehensive control over discharges into the sea or over discharges into the larger estuaries if they began before 1960. I am not satisfied with this situation.
Against that background, the cleaning up of the rivers has to be regarded as an essay in gradualness. Essentially, it depends upon the local authority or the industry which discharges liquid waste

to the river treating that waste before discharge to a standard at which it does not harm the river for its subsequent use.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Would not the hon. Gentleman accept that in this case not only does it depend on the local authority or the industry but it depends also on the Government centrally providing financial assistance to ensure that the local authority and/or industry takes the necessary measures?

Mr. Griffiths: It is certainly the task of the central Government to have oversight of these things. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will wait a few moments till I come to some of the proposals before dealing with the point which he raises. In general, the problem is this. The discharger's primary concern is to get rid of the waste as quickly and as cheaply as possible. In the process, many lengths of streams and rivers have been polluted, often to the extent of making them incapable of supporting fish life.
The Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts have almost certainly halted that worsening process. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East pointed out, perhaps three out of five of our existing sewerage works still produce effluents of a lower standard than the consents of the river authorities require. We still have a long way to go before all sewerage works are achieving the standards already set, commonly known as the Royal Commission standards. We recognise that in some instances these standards are inadequate, although in some rivers, for example, the Lea, standards are already higher and this is a matter for some credit. But in general we believe that standards need to be related to the needs of the river at the point of discharge, the dilution available, the use to which the water downstream is to be put, and so on.
Most of the other questions which my hon. Friend asked in the course of a profound and notable speech, about the extension of control of discharges into estuaries, safety precautions for the storage of potential polluters and so on, have already been studied by one or other of the two bodies whose reports are to be published shortly.
In the face of restraint on capital expenditure, river authorities in recent


years have felt inhibited from pressing upon local authorities their duty to spend money to bring their effluents up to standard, at least to raise their standards. Being unable to press local authorities for improvements because of the financial restrictions placed upon them by the Labour Government, they may also have been more lenient with industrial dischargers than they or we would like.
In a word, this is not good enough. This is one of the many undesirable consequences of a lower rate of economic growth which holds back the amount of money and real resources which may be devoted even to such necessities as the prevention of water pollution. The Government, I am glad to say, are very conscious of the need to prevent water pollution in order to safeguard our sources of water supply and to preserve the amenities and the recreational value of our surface waters.
But we have to be sure of getting value for our money, and that brings me to the right organisation for administering our water services and those who are responsible for sewerage. We shall study with the greatest care and speed the views of the Central Advisory Water Committee, which is considering the future organisation of these services, and will, I hope, report by the end of the year. I hope, too, that a preliminary report of the Rivers Pollution Survey will be available shortly. When we have the full results, we shall be able to see more clearly where the need for expenditure on improvement is greatest.
The report of the Technical Committee on the Disposal of Solid Toxic Wastes is to be published in August. Present arrangements for the disposal of such wastes may well offer too many opportunities for people who are concerned to get rid of them quickly and cheaply rather than to dispose of them safely, and we shall have to consider what better arrangements are necessary in the light of that report. I expect the report of the Working Party on Sewage Disposal to be published at the end of this month. Its terms of reference were to consider and report on the public health, amenity and economic aspects of the various methods of sewage disposal.

Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Member made the charge that improvements were

delayed because of financial restrictions imposed by the Labour Government. Are we to take it from that that those financial restrictions will be eased so as to enable authorities to get on with the improvements?

Mr. Griffiths: As soon as we have cleared up the financial mess, we may be able to do that. I am sorry that the hon. Member is so sensitive about what I had hoped was a completely non-contentious speech.
Further progress is clearly necessary, but it would be wrong to say that our record as a country was poor; on the contrary, it is among the best in the world. Whoever spends the money, and large sums will have to be provided, whether it is spent in the first place by public authorities, private industry, national or local boards, we must all in the end bear the inescapable cost of protecting our natural asset of water from damage by pollution.
I turn now to a question which attracted a great deal of attention namely air pollution. This arises not only from man-made but from natural causes. It is important to point this out, because some newspaper reports recently have got this problem wildly out of perspective. Sulphur dioxide, that so called demon SO2, for instance, is often an offensive pollutant but by no means all of it arises from oil and fossil fuel burning. Of the SO2 in the atmosphere less than a quarter is produced by manmade processes. The rest, more than three-quarters of the SO2 arises from such natural causes as the oceans and the decomposition of animal and vegetable matter.
Man-made pollution none the less is our proper target, because in some cases at least it is preventable. The burning of coal in unimproved appliances, and I emphasise that, produces smoke, grit, dust and sulphur oxides. The domestic fireplace, so much loved by the British for so many centuries is still responsible for 85 per cent. of all our ground level smoke.
Natural gas, by contrast, is our cleanest fossil fuel. Oil combustion, on the other hand, produces a wide variety of pollutants notably those smelly, unburned hydrocarbons which one encounters when trying to cross from Whitehall to the House of Commons.
Indeed, one sometimes feels, standing at the corner of Whitehall and Bridge Street while the traffic all but smothers one in haze and unpleasant fumes, that it is an extremely bad example to set to the rest of the country. My hon. friend the Member for Walthamstow, East made a number of suggestions about a propane experiment. Once again, I assure him that we will look at this and I will get in touch with him. Taken together, all these pollutants, whether the grit, dust, fumes or whatever, are an undoubted hazard to good health. The amenity effects are no less disturbing because smoke, as hon. Members representing northern cities have reminded us, causes dirtiness and can cause squalor.
It blacks out the sun from our cities, and those who live in the highly populated areas of Britain can no longer be sure of breathing clean air. While the problem is a large one we are far from taking it lying down. It is very much to the credit of successive Governments, Conservative and Labour alike, that our code of legislation, established by the Conservative Clean Air Act of 1956 and strengthened by the Labour Clean Air Act, 1968, is not only acceptable to and well understood by local authorities and industrialists, but it is also admired and respected abroad. We are frequently asked for advice by representatives of other countries.
During the past 10 years the average urban ground level concentrations of sulphur dioxide in this country have declined by 40 per cent. I doubt whether there are many countries, certainly there is no other major industrial country, which has done any better.

Mr. David Clark: You rightly say that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I realise the hon. Member is new to the House. He must address the Minister through the Chair.

Mr. Clark: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister rightly points out that of the amount of sulphur dioxide in the air, three-quarters is naturally produced. This is an average figure. Would he not agree that there are certain densely populated industrial areas where the amount of man-made sulphur dioxides is much higher than

one-quarter and presents special problems?

Mr. Griffiths: Yes, of course, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. If he has any specific evidence he wants to bring to our attention, I should be glad to hear from him.
The improvement that has been marked over recent years is as much due to domestic smoke control as to the co-operation of industry and the Ministry's Alkali Inspectorate. It is right to recognise a British success story where we happen to have one. As long ago as 1956 the Ministry of Housing and Local Government informally designated 324 local authorities as black areas, that is to say areas of exceptionally heavy pollution. Broadly speaking, these black areas are to be found in the great conurbations of Greater London, the Midlands, the Potteries, South Lancashire, South Wales and so on. But at present, fifteen years later, all but 22 of those 324 authorities have initiated smoke control, and a fair number have completed or are nearing the completion of programmes which will establish smoke control over their entire areas.
The other day I was pleased to attend a celebration of the City of Westminster's completion of its smoke control programme. Westminster has put through 39 smoke control orders covering 120,000 premises and it looks as though we may now have reached the end of those old fogs that used to characterise the London scene and did so much damage to its citizens in past years. It is now a fact that visibility in Central London has improved from over 1½ miles ten years ago to 4 miles on an average sunny day. American visitors to whom I have spoken this summer have agreed with me that few great cities in the world can match the clean-air programme that has been achieved in the British capital. Progress in the rest of the country has been equally encouraging. All told, from the inception of smoke control until the end of 1969 some 3,165 smoke control orders have been confirmed. These involve 4,400,000 premises. The rate of progress reached a peak in 1962 and another in 1967. But after that it declined because less public money was available and local authorities were asked to make discretionary cuts in expenditure on their environmental services.
That brings me to the one conspicuous lack-of-success story I have to tell in the saga of clean-air. The rapid and welcome progress we have been making throughout the 1950s and 1960s is now threatened by a worrying situation that we inherited from the Labour Government. I refer to the shortage—a temporary shortage, I hope—of solid smokeless fuel. Measures to abate air pollution at present are a public health responsibility of my Department. Supplies of smokeless fuel are the particular responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Ministry of Technology who has undertaken to keep the House informed on the situation, and I believe he will seek to do this before the Summer Recess. He will not object, however, to my telling the House that, owing to the progressive diminution in the manufacture of gas coke, formerly produced in large quantities, the amount of coke coming on to the market in the current year will fall by a very substantial figure. Next year the supply will be negligible and for 1973 there will be none. Gas coke will be a thing of the past and many may welcome that.
While they were in office right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite confidently expected that they would be able to fill these widening gaps, of which they were given ample warning by a rapid build-up in the production of smokeless fuels. In the event they were disappointed. As long ago as December 1969 they were forced to start suspending smokeless zones. The present Government have now inherited the smokeless fuel shortage and it gives us no joy at all. However, it falls to us to repair the situation and to seek to minimise the inconvenience to consumers and to local authorities and all those in the House and throughout the country who believe in the clean air programme. It is not easy to deal with this situation, and I am advised that in some areas the shortage may get worse before it gets any better. The plain fact is that because our predecessors were too slow to grasp the seriousness of the impending shortage, it is now all but inevitable, in European Conservation Year, that in some localities more orders to suspend smokeless zones will have to be made this winter.
The Government very much regret that this should be so, but we are mounting a vigorous operation to meet the deficit

left to us. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Technology, is doing his utmost to increase supplies. The Ministry of Public Building and Works is encouraging public offices to convert coke-burning boilers to other fuels so as to leave more coke for the domestic consumer. My own Department is asking local authorities and local education authorities not only to use less coke but to work out comprehensive policies for the most effective use of available supplies in consultation with local branches of the Smokeless Fuels Federation.
Meantime, I regret to say that smoke control orders will continue to be accepted only if they are submitted by authorities in "black" areas or by other authorities which are implementing programmes of smoke control already approved by my Department. Other authorities which may seek to initiate smoke control are at present having to be requested to hold their hands for the time being.
I very much regret that, in the year 1970, an advanced industrial country like ours should be forced to curtail its clean air programme for this reason. The fault is not ours, and I am glad to be able to assure the House that, as soon as we can get over the present temporary shortage, we shall resume the forward movement towards the elimination of smoke and air pollution. We shall do so because we believe that the fight against pollution is vital and that clean air, clean water and, as far as possible, a level of noise that is compatible with civilised living are indispensable elements in the higher quality of life to which the British people aspire and which the present Government are determined to help them achieve.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bray: In this, my maiden speech, I want first to thank my hon. Friend for a most comprehensive reply to a wide-ranging debate.
It is my privilege to represent Rossendale, which is an industrial constituency taking in four of our older industrial towns. But Rossendale will not be found on any map: it is designated "Rossendale Forest". However, that is an anachronism. The forest disappeared more than a century ago and, in spite of many efforts, it has been quite impossible for reafforestation to take place, because of the polluted atmosphere.
It is a great area of hills and valleys. Fortunately, we have only remote aircraft noise, because we have not enough level ground for more than a helicopter to land on. But the other issues are serious, and I hope that, in the course of time, when the Government have been able to assess their priorities and get the country moving again, we shall be able to make vast improvements in the area, for improve it we must. If we do not, it will become more and more depopulated.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) made some very detailed points on afforestation, erosion, and the like, with which I entirely concur. But I should like to make these further points.
It is a fact that if a fence is erected in the Colne Valley part of the country, which is about 1,000 or 1,200 ft. above sea level, its life is no more than about seven or eight years, because of the chemical action in the atmosphere. That is the extent of the pollution suffered in that area; that is the seriousness of the situation.
The Minister rightly said that if the dirt in the atmosphere is permitted to continue people will be driven further away from those valleys and we will have an area of environmental pollution by evacuation rather than by atmospheric pollution. That is the position that we face in that area.
We have pollution in our rivers, too. I am glad to say that the Orwell has recently seen its first trout for about 50 years, but that was in its lower reaches. In the higher reaches the position is still very grave. However, I admit that it is improving vastly.
Everyone complains about atmospheric and environmental pollution, but the fact is that few people are prepared to accept liability for it. They will complain; they will criticise. But if we are to get our countryside, our environment, in order, we must be prepared to pay the price, as the Minister said.
The people of our valleys in the north are grand souls, the salt of the earth, but we should be eroding the salt from the earth if action is not taken. When we go over the tops of the hills and look at those valleys we see a pall of smoke, due, even now, to the non-availability of smokeless fuel. I have discussed

afforestation with various experts. They have told me that until such time as smokeless fuels are readily available in the smokeless zones in the north, afforestation is not possible or feasible economically.
I live 50 miles from the major built-up areas, but, even there, I see the effect, particularly when snow is on the ground. In the course of three to four days the snow turns from white to a dirty grey-black. That is the issue which we face. Whilst thanking the Minister for his comprehensive reply, may I point out that it is an issue which the country as a whole must be prepared to face with the full knowledge that if we are to get the environment that we wish we must be prepared to accept the cost.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND (AGRICULTURE)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. We come now to the third subject for debate: the improvement of agriculture in the hills and uplands of Scotland. May I remind the House that the debate must be confined to the items which begin at the bottom of page 30 and continue to the end of the first item on page 32.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Bray) and to welcome him to our midst. We listened with interest to his speech, at the end of a long debate through which he has patiently sat. I have no doubt that in future he will make further valuable contributions to the debates in which he participates. His predecessor in this House was well known. In due course, no doubt the hon. Gentleman may be as well known.
I am glad to have the opportunity tonight to raise the subject of the improvement of the condition of agriculture in the hills and uplands in Scotland, because there is an immediate crisis facing the industry, and a crisis of which the Government are showing themselves rather less than sufficiently aware.
This afternoon at Question Time the Minister of Agriculture was asked by myself and by a number of other hon. Members whether he was prepared to institute


an interim agricultural Price Review at which it would be possible to consider the various grants and the level of the grants that we are considering tonight in the Supplementary Estimates. The right hon. Gentleman replied that he was prepared to listen to representations on this subject. That was a surprising reply, because extensive representations have already been made to the right hon. Gentleman, to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and also, I believe, to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, whose presence in the Chamber I particularly welcome.
On the 16th of this month the President of the English National Farmers' Union met the Press to discuss the predicament of agriculture in this country as a whole. He made it clear that since the Annual Price Review in the spring there had been serious cost inflation, and in seeking the immediate assistance of the Government in the form of injecting extra cash into the agricultural economy he put a figure of £20 million per annum on that cost inflation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but would he be good enough to tell the Chair to which of these Votes he is referring?

Mr. Maclennan: As the level of each of these grants was determined in the Annual Price Review, my remarks are germane to every head.
Not only have we had that specific request from the Chairman of the English N.F.U., but we have had a similar statement from the Scottish N.F.U., and reported in the Glasgow Herald of 17th July describing a meeting between the N.F.U., the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Under-Secretary of State who is present tonight. It is interesting to note the marked difference of emphasis between the two statements that have been issued, because in the statement made in Scotland it was said that Ministers accepted the need for urgency in getting a special assessment under way as a necessary basis for the Government's consideration of the need for action.
What I think is clear is that both unions have made a strong plea for an immediate cash injection into the agricultural economy, and that they are not prepared to wait until the normal processes

of the annual Price Review get under way at the end of this year. They take the view that urgent consideration, leading to a special Price Review, must be given by the Government to the immediate situation.
The reason for that is clear. It is that there has been this dramatic cost inflation of, the unions estimate, £20 million per annum since the last Price Review, with no attempt by the Government to intervene, either in the public sector, for example in respect of electricity charges, or in the private sector in respect of increased fuel charges. These costs have been rocketing in recent weeks, and Ministers have simply stood by and allowed this to go on. They have done no more than express a general degree of sympathy—

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Which Ministers?

Mr. Maclennan: —for the farmers' predicament.

Mr. MacArthur: Which Minister?

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister of the hon. Member's Government.

Mr. MacArthur: When the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board first intimated its intention to increase charges, what action was taken by the Labour Government?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member may be suggesting that the present Government are or are not responsible for the increased charges. I am not making a party point. I am drawing attention to where the responsibility currently lies, however unfortunate many of us find that to be. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have allowed this cost-inflation to go on at an ever-increasing pace while doing no more than express sympathy with the farmers in their predicament.

Mr. MacArthur: rose—

Mr. Maclennan: I have given way to the hon. Member and he has made his point. No doubt he will have the opportunity to speak later in the debate. A number of hon. Members wish to take part in it. I am expressing no party point of view. This is a matter of great seriousness and it will not be advanced by hon. Members seeking to ascribe praise or blame for the predicament of


the farming community. But inherent in what the Government are proposing for agriculture is a genuine difficulty which stems from the fact that they propose a change in the system of agricultural support. By their own admission that is to take a period of years. What is uncertain is what will happen during the three-year period of transition when we are moving over to the new levy system.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am worried about the hon. Member's speech because I cannot see that the Government's future policy has anything to do with these Estimates. The hon. Member should look at the Estimates and decide about which he wants to talk, because the only subject which is in order is the increase in these Estimates. I hope that he understands.

Mr. Maclennan: I understand perfectly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sorry if my argument is ranging rather generally, but the level of the increase and whether it is adequate seems to fall within the scope of the debate. The Government appear at present to be committed to the technique of assistance by capital grants but the future remains uncertain. It falls to the Government to explain how they propose to inject this extra cash into the agricultural economy to meet the cost-inflation, because these heads of expenditure were determined in the Annual Price Review some months ago before this cost-inflation took place. Since then we have seen a dramatic increase in fertiliser costs—I understand that the N.F.U. have put it as high as £3 a ton—despite undertakings by the fertiliser industry that no cost increases would be passed on to the agricultural community during this year—undertakings given when the Labour Government announced in the Price Review that they proposed to make substantial increases in the fertiliser subsidy on a once-for-all basis.
That is the most dramatic of the cost increases which the farming community has had to bear. There have been others, particularly notable in transportation in Scotland. That question has been exercising the mind not only of the hon. Member but his friends in the Ministry of Transport, but when I sought to put this point to the Minister of Transport

he referred me to his hon. Friend. I hope that tonight the Minister will have something to say about the way in which he proposes to overcome the cost increases that the agriculture industry has had to face in transport and freight, and whether he feels that the increases put forward in the Price Review are sufficient to deal with the inflation that has taken place since.
I want finally to consider one or two specific grants that fall to be considered tonight. First, it will be generally welcomed by the farming community that the grant for the improvement of hill land has been increased to 60 per cent. But there are certain deficiencies in the grant that the Minister was well aware of, at least when in opposition. In particular, there is the question of the eligibility of shelters for grant assistance. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister's thinking is on that point. It is widely accepted that it is desirable that in wintering shelters should be provided and grant-assisted at the higher rate of 60 per cent. rather than the lower rate of 40 per cent.
The brucellosis eradication scheme has also been given a rather muted welcome by the farming community in Scotland. It is not difficult to see why. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Anthony Stodart)—who now has a Government responsibility for agriculture—during an earlier debate upon the brucellosis eradication scheme said that in his view the longer eradication was delayed the greater the risk to herds which were clean at the moment. He said that reactors had to be kept off the market, and that he was certain that that could be done only if compensation was paid. What plainly has not been provided by the new scheme is the payment of compensation for the slaughter of reactors. It is a matter of some urgency that the Government should look at this and institute the area eradication schemes promised by the previous Government, and, if possible, at an early date. We realise that there is a problem in relation to the supply of brucellafree stock.
The House will be glad to hear the Minister on this point. In his farming capacity he has pursued this problem with some interest and sensitivity to the needs of Scottish agriculture. One hopes that this scheme is just the precursor of


something much more effective in eradication than it promises to be, relying as it does on private insurance.
The revised provisions of this Estimate increase the amount payable under the general fertiliser subsidy by £1 million. This is a useful injection of cash, but it was fixed before the recent increases in the price of fertilisers. I should like to hear how the Minister proposes to deal with this.
I advised the hon. Gentleman that I should want to raise a point concerning a drainage scheme in my constituency, in the Strath Fleet area of Sutherland. In some parts of Scotland, to make progress with drainage schemes it is necessary to obtain the consent of the proprietor, who is the person eligible for grant. In large areas of the Highlands, the proprietor is interested not so much in the promotion of agriculture but, frequently, in sport or recreation. Consequently, he has no incentive to take up these grants. I have found this difficulty also in the Loch Watten scheme in Caithness. The Government should give some thought to overcoming this difficulty. It is inhibiting the proper land use of large areas of the Highlands that grants are available to the proprietor and not to the tenant farmer, whose livelihood depends upon proper use of land.
But the nub of this debate must be the Government's attitude to the request, which is becoming increasingly loud, from the farmers' unions to step up the rates of grant and to increase the cash available as early as possible. The Minister's statement today that he was prepared to listen to representations on this subject was difficult to understand, since those representations have already been made. According to the union spokesman, they were thought to have been understood. Does the Minister understand that what is being asked for is an interim price review not later than the autumn?
Is the Department now working on the question of increased costs, and when will the Minister be in a position to say what those increased costs are? It is not sufficient for the House to be told that these costs are being studied. We want the true facts because we have an important part to play as Members of Parliament in assisting the agricultural community

to make its case, and we cannot adequately do that save on the basis of agreed and understood facts about costs. This has been the deficiency of the price review system in the past. I hope the Minister will clear up the doubt that has arisen about the Government's attitude to an interim price review.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for raising this important subject.
The hon. Gentleman is right to remind hon. Members that farmers in Scotland, and particularly in hill areas, face enormous problems as a result of escalating costs. He is equally right to remind us that responsibility for the future must rest with the new Administration. However, a certain responsibility must rest with the previous Labour Administration.
My hon. Friends face a double task, because a large part of their responsibility is that of trying to clear up the mess which they inherited in farming from the Government who, mercifully, have left office. The hon. Gentleman appeared to forget that my right hon. Friends have been in office for just under five weeks. He cried out for an interim Price Review. If there is a case for such a review this autumn, that will be a reflection of the inadequacy of the review earlier this year, forced on agriculture by the then Labour Government.
The hon. Gentleman is right to call attention to the financial problems confronting hill farmers, who are often small farmers, in Scotland. They have suffered from the tight credit policy of the Labour Government, from the high interest rates which resulted from the economic incompetence of that Government, and now they are about to suffer from the higher electricity charges put to the Labour Government by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board.
They have suffered for four years and more from the impact of S.E.T., which the hon. Gentleman has consistently supported in this House and which costs agriculture in Scotland about £1½ million every quarter—an enforced interest-free loan to the Government introduced by Labour and suported loyally by the hon.


Gentleman throughout, to the detriment of farmers in his constituency and throughout Scotland.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman is devoting a large part of his speech to recounting history, and what he is saying may no doubt be of interest to the farming community. However, to set the historical record straight, if he looks up my maiden speech he will see that I drew attention to what I considered to be the folly of seeking to recompense farmers through the price review for S.E.T. That method was subsequently changed, so that my representations were not wholly without effect.

Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman may claim as much credit as he likes for the work done by the National Farmers' Union of Scotland and the Conservative Opposition of the day. He will recall that the selective employment tax, even in its amended form, costs Scottish agriculture about £1½ million every quarter of every year, in an enforced interest-free loan to the Government. He may think that that is a wise economic policy for farming. I do not, and that is where we differ.
The hon. Gentleman complains of other increases in farming costs. I have in mind transport charges, which have escalated enormously thanks to the increases in petrol duty under the Labour Government and the enormous increase in licence charges, a result also of the impact of S.E.T. on the charges to farmers by the garages which service their vehicles.
The hon. Gentleman may take pride in the introduction of British Standard Time, which has increased costs to farmers in his constituency as in mine, and he may take comfort from the fact that the present Government have already removed the worst excesses from the Transport Act which would have caused so much additional cost and hardship to farmers throughout Scotland.
I mention all these things because I take it rather amiss of the hon. Gentleman in particular to levy charges against the present Administration. The whole reason for the problems which he has rightly described—and I congratulate him for doing so—rests with the

Administration which he supported loyally year after year. He is right to point out that it is now the task of the present Government to try to clear up the problems resulting from those years of neglect of farming in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that my right hon. and hon. Friends propose a change in the pattern of support for agriculture. I welcome this, and I am very glad that there has been the closest consultation between my right hon. and hon. Friends and the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, and that this close consultation will continue. I think that most farmers in Scotland believe that there is a need for a change in the pattern of support, which will be of as much benefit to farmers in the hill lands as anywhere else. What they and all farming interests require is the prospect of expansion. It is expansion that can bring a higher cash flow into farming, and the hon. Gentleman will agree that a better cash flow is what farmers and farm workers require for the prosperity of their industry.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say a little more about the progress of the consultations in his reply, and that he will remind the House and the public that the very difficulties the hon. Gentleman described so evocatively are the responsibility not of the present Administration, which has been in office less than five weeks, but a reflection of the years of neglect of farming which were the legacy of the Administration the hon. Gentleman supported so loyally year after year.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: It is a little tedious at this time of night to have to listen to hon Members' election speeches reiterated again and again. Normally I listen to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) with some pleasure, but on this occasion I found his speech somewhat tedious.

Mr. MacArthur: It was relevant.

Mr. Mackintosh: It was highly irrelevant, as I shall argue.
I have, first, the more pleasureable task of welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. We look forward to many speeches from him. I have a


great deal of personal knowledge of his interest in the industry and his work on the Select Committee, and therefore I expect that we shall have from him a proper treatment of the subject rather than electioneering clap-trap of that kind we have just heard.
We are discussing Supplementary Estimates for the assistance of hill agriculture in Scotland. When the parties change sides after a General Election there is a tendency for one side to resume the arguments where the other left off, and for the Government to take up the comforting atmosphere of the previous Government that nothing is wrong and that things are better than people imagined. Recalling the attacks of hon. Members opposite on the Labour Government's Price Reviews, I was amused and interested that the Minister of Agriculture, addressing some farmers recently after he had been in office three weeks, said that the trouble with agriculture now was
two bad reasons rather than ungenerous Price Reviews.
What a change in atmosphere now! According to the right hon. Gentleman, the Labour Government's Price Reviews were not ungenerous. I want tonight to drop this sort of rotation and to ask the Minister how his thinking is going after four weeks he has had to time to devote to this matter. He will appreciate that the sectors of agriculture we are discussing in hill agriculture in Scotland, for which these Supplementary Estimates are intended, have been in doubt for some considerable time. There is a lack of confidence and uncertainty about the future. Two things have increased the uncertainty. One is the prospect of immediate negotiations for entry to the Common Market in which the future of the Supplementary Estimates is not clear if the negotiations are carried through. Secondly, there is the move of the party opposite to a levy system. That is not clear and I should welcome clarification on the question of the extent to which the party opposite wishes to retain or to phase out provision in such Supplementary Estimates.
A third point was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), the increase in costs since the last Price Review. This is a serious point. I do

not know whether it yet merits a serious review. No doubt the Under-Secretary is bearing this matter in mind. I should be grateful if he could give an indication of how far costs would have to go in acceleration before the Government begin to think of criteria for a special Review. The National Farmers' Union has estimated an increase in costs of £20 million between April and the present time.
There are present problems which highlight these Supplementary Estimates. Uncertainties could be rapidly cleared up if the Government were able to make a series of statements, which I appreciate would in part have to anticipate a Budget Statement. If prices continue to rise, uncertainty will remain as bad as it is now. Such statements of intent could clarify the situation and farmers facing the difficulties of harvest and into the winter would know where they stand. I urge the Minister to see that the stronger our agriculture is, the better it will be for us if we go into the Common Market and the less we would have to pay in import levies to the Common Market.
In this sense the well-being of particular areas of agriculture is of particular importance. The Common Market is a net importer of beef and veal and the areas we are considering are store areas for beef cattle. I should think it possible to expand our beef cattle production. I should like the Under-Secretary to confirm that the hill cow and hill sheep subsidies and the Hill Land Improvement Scheme will remain intact and will not be diminished in any way in any review of agricultural policy and subsidies which the Minister and his right hon. Friends may undertake. It would help a great deal if we could be promised that these grants will be maintained at their present level and value if costs go markedly further. In view of the importance of sheep farming in these upland areas, are the Government contemplating the renegotiation of agreements with New Zealand under which mutton is brought into this country? This is of critical importance if the Government are to pursue a levy system and if we are to strenthen the position of sheep farmers in upland areas.
Besides the future of cattle and sheep farming in upland areas, there is an acute problem of the labour force which is directly related to the income of these farmers. All hon. Members, especially


those with upland areas in their constituencies, know the great danger of a rapid drain of manpower from the land. On a number of farms in upland areas there is no labour except that of the farmer and his family, and extra labour at critical times such as lambing and harvesting is exceptionally difficult to obtain and very costly. If labour is to be retained in agriculture, the income level of these farms must be raised. This is done largely through the type of grant set out in these Supplementary Estimates.
I do not wish to push any partisan points. I want to probe the new Government's thinking on these problems after four or five weeks in office. Any reassurance that they can give the industry to cover the three-month period of the Recess will be welcome, because we will be going into these matters directly the House reassembles.
I should be grateful if the Minister could say a little about the fertiliser grant mentioned in the Supplementary Estimates. The Labour Government received an undertaking from the fertiliser companies that prices would be pegged when the fertiliser grant was increased in the Price Review, yet this does not appear to have happened. There are widespread reports of increases in fertiliser prices. This appears to be a local variation.
In relation to these Supplementary Estimates, are the Government thinking of any particular aid to ensure that grassland is better brought into operation for the benefit of expanding sheep and cattle production in the hills?
I will not go over the statements which have been bandied back and forth across the House. What we are interested in is not politics but the welfare of agriculture in these very difficult hill areas. We should welcome any statement the Minister could make to increase confidence and increase the desire and capacity of the people in these areas to remain on the land.

12.12 a.m.

Mr. John Brewis: I am glad that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has had the opportunity to raise the question of hill farming tonight. It is a subject that we do not debate nearly often enough. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur),

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was disingenuous in ascribing all the cost increase and the problems of transportation to five weeks of Conservative Government. It will take a considerable time to rectify this position.
Has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary considered the possibility of a remoteness grant such as that given in Northern Ireland to deal with some of these problems? A strong and viable hill sheep industry is most important to the whole of British agriculture. There are areas, particularly in the North of Scotland, where forestry is not an alternative to the hill sheep industry. There are other reasons why the hill sheep industry is so important, particularly for fertility which sheep bring to arable areas where the problem of soil fertility is of some importance.
Over the last few years the hill sheep farmers have battled against adversity, partly caused by bad weather and partly by a long succesison of bad price reviews. The increases made by the last Government, many of which figure in these Estimates, have come rather too late. In the area I represent the decline in the numbers of sheep is distressing. For example, in the South-West of Scotland—the Langholm district—the numbers declined by 11·2 per cent. between 1963 and 1968. In Maybole in South Ayrshire they declined by 8·6 per cent. In the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright they declined by 7·1 per cent.
I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) that we need a declaration of intent. The way the hill sheep industry is treated will be a touchstone of confidence in the Government's attitude to farming in general. The hon. Member also mentioned the Common Market. It would be out of order for me to follow him. However, it is most unfortunate that the problem of these areas is always called a social problem which it should more properly be called a regional problem and there should be regulations in the Common Market for dealing with the problems of remoter areas, which will be necessary as soon as Norway, and perhaps the United Kingdom, enters the Common Market.
We are discussing the grants which are of a capital nature. The only solution to the problem is an increase in the


end product. To increase, for example, the hill ewe subsidy does not necessarily make for good husbandry. It is merely a question of having a number of ewes on the holding, and in many cases there might not be enough winter keep. Therefore, animal husbandry may suffer by this sort of grant. What is important is an increase in the end price. This applies also to the price of wool.
I notice that in the 1970 Price Review it was stated that the subsidy was very large compared with the return to the producer, but it is only about half what it was three years ago. I feel that it was a mistake by the last Government not to increase the ewe subsidy.
As regards the general question of grants for the improvement of hill land, we must all note that, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland has said, shepherds are very hard to get and their wages do not compare favourably with wages in other industries, particularly in England.
We need more productivity on the hills. One thing that we should look at is the waste of time which occurs on many hill farms. The position could be improved if the Government helped to develop a vehicle which enabled a shepherd to get over his area rather quicker than spending two or three hours walking great distances. I believe that various vehicles—the Hafflinger and the Gnat, for example—are being tried out and I hope that the Government will give grants for research for this purpose.
Another grant which is very important is the grant for fencing. If a farmer can fence his hills into areas of 200 or 300 acres, he does not waste so much time in looking for sheep over enormous areas. This grant, therefore, is also particularly important. Basically, one of the troubles is that all these things, like making tracks across hills for vehicles or providing fencing to keep sheep in, are very expensive and the money simply is not there in the industry.
I turn now to the improvement of farm structure in hill areas. There is no doubt that hill farming is subsidised, but, equally, forestry is subsidised, too. For example, when the Forestry Commission incurs a deficit on its annual working, it is to a very large extent subsidised by the taxpayer. Similarly, subscribers

to the Economic Forestry Group obtain tax concessions of a considerable order, so that they, too, are subsidised.
I feel strongly that we need proper land use in the hill areas, and I am very sorry that successive Governments have not paid more attention to good land use in these areas. The rural development boards seem to me to be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. When the Forestry Commission proposes to plant what was previously a hill sheep farm, it has to obtain the permission of the Department of Agriculture. This should apply equally to private forestry interests, like the Economic Forestry Group, and they should do so voluntarily by submitting details of intended acquisitions to the Department of Agriculture. Proper land use is so important that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should, if necessary, produce legislation to prevent a great deal of useful upland land being planted unnecessarily with trees.

12.18 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I should like first to thank the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for raising this subject in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate, because it is particularly important, as the quality of the speeches has shown. I congratulate the hon. Member on his success in the Ballot and his choice of subject.
At the same time, I should like to thank the hon. Member for his kind remarks in welcoming me to the Box tonight. This is the first opportunity I have had since I came to my new post to speak in an agriculture debate, and if I had been asked on what subject affecting Scottish agriculture I should have liked to speak in the first debate to which I was replying, it would have been the hill and upland areas, which are not only close to my heart concerning Scottish agriculture, but are very important, both in my own constituency, and in the constituencies of all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate.
Having said these few words of kindness—I hope—to the hon. Gentleman, and before coming to some of the constructive comments made in the debate, I must say that I was a little disappointed at the tone of the initial part of the hon.


Gentleman's speech. He talked of a crisis in the industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) rightly pointed out, his Government were not able to put it right in 5½ years, so to expect us to do it in five weeks is, perhaps, a little unkind, or I should think it a little unkind did I not take it as flattering that the hon. Gentleman has such confidence in the ability of this Government quickly to sort out the problems which his right hon. and hon. Friends failed to solve. However, I let that pass for the moment.
It is true that costs are rising fast now. We are looking at this carefully, and considering closely what the National Farmers' Union has said and is saying to us. But in the Price Review of last March the industry had to take account of price rises of £60 million, 50 per cent. more than in 1969, and very nearly as much as the record level of £68 million in the post-devaluation year 1968. So let the hon. Gentleman have the position clear. When he talks about cost increases, let him look at the situation in the context and perspective of the kind of cost increases which the industry had to face under his Government, and some of the increases of recent months which are a legacy from his Government, not the creation of the new Government.

Mr. Maclennan: It is unnecessary for the hon. Gentleman to labour the point, as it was for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) to make it. I said clearly in my speech that I was referring to cost inflation since the last Price Review. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is not responsible altogether for that. What we want to hear tonight is how he proposes to deal with this problem. That is what I have tried to focus attention on. The ascription of blame will be of no great interest to the farming community.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman meant that, he would have done better to put it in that way. I shall not dwell on it further. If he wants to introduce that sort of spirit into his speeches, he must expect the same spirit back, and he should not complain if he finds it unpleasant.
I take one other example, transport. In the last 5½ years, transport costs—the hon. Gentleman knows this, just as I do in my part of Scotland—have risen faster than at any time in recent years. In our few weeks in office, we have helped transport by our concessions in regard to livestock haulage and our assurance that we shall not introduce the 100-mile limit for road haulage. We have shown our concern about haulage and demonstrated clearly where our interests lie, that is, in looking after agriculture in Scotland and, in particular, the remoter areas where transport is so important.
Before coming to the more general part of the debate, which, I recognise, is by far the most important, I shall deal with some of the specific questions which have been raised. First, the question of fertilisers. At the last Price Review, the fertiliser manufacturers gave an assurance to the Government that they would not raise their prices. On the evidence we have seen, it seems that they are keeping the same price lists as at a year ago.
There seems to be a certain amount of doubt about the rate of discount and the amount of margin taken by merchants on handling the fertilisers, for it is not in every case that the manufacturer sells direct to the farmer. We are aware of the concern. So far it has been difficult to get precise information, but the National Farmers' Union is helping us in this respect and as the subsidy returns come into my Department, we will study them closely and compare the prices with those of last year. I assure the House that this is a matter which we are watching closely, but we have not yet had long enough to be certain whether the pledge is being honoured.
The hon. Member spoke about grants for buildings in hill and upland areas. This is a subject which I have mentioned in debates here and elsewhere and I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member had to say. I hope that he had something to say to the Labour Government on the subject. While the situation is as it is, in that buildings in these areas qualify only for the farm improvement rate of grant and not for the higher rate, I can give the hon. Member the assurance that this is a matter which we shall keep in mind in the future consideration of grants.
He mentioned brucellosis, which is a problem close to my heart. We have to push on with eradication as fast as is practicable. The hon. Member quoted my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Anthony Stodart) on the subject, and his criticism that there was no compensation. We announced a scheme last week. No doubt the hon. Member has read what was said then, but if he would like a copy of the details of the scheme, I will write to him rather than take up the time of the House at this hour.
The eradication of brucellosis is a very different matter from the eradication of a disease like tuberculosis. It requires far more investment and co-operation by the farmer than do other forms of disease eradication. That is why personally I have always supported the principle of the incentive. The carrot is better than the stick in matters like this. When farmers realise that they can earn incentives by going into schemes and co-operating they will do so, and that is a better way in which to get the scheme going.
Secondly, and here I come to the criticism made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West, at the time of the Price Review we were concerned with how much of the incentive would be taken by insurance premiums. Clearly, if a large proportion of the incentive were to be taken by insurance premiums, the incentive would be undermined. It is clear from the policies proposed by most of the large insurance companies, however, that the premiums will take only a small proportion of the incentive. This throws a completely new light on the subject.
However, I assure the House that if the premiums are reviewed by the insurance companies at any stage, we will bear in mind the relationship between the premiums and the incentive earned, because what we want is the eradication of the disease. The incentive scheme will cost £5 million in a full year, which is a big investment, and we want to ensure that we get value for money.
The hon. Member asked a detailed question about a drainage scheme for the River Fleet. I have written to him about this. I share his regret that it

is not possible to go ahead with this scheme, but, on account of its complexity and size, it can be carried out only under the Land Drainage (Scotland) Act, 1958. The rate of grant is fixed in that Act and is limited to 50 per cent. of the cost of doing the work, and that figure cannot be increased by Statutory Instrument.
Unfortunately in this case the 10 per cent. supplement given in the hill land improvement scheme and the further 10 per cent. supplement grant following the 1970 Price Review cannot apply. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, a scheme under the Act normally requires the unanimous support of the proprietors concerned. He raised the question of interests other than those who are just proprietors, and I agree that there is a problem of the clash of interests here. After all, it is the proprietors who have the primary interest in the land in question. It has always been a principle of these schemes that we have had to deal with the proprietors over the improvement and qualifications for grant. While we need the unanimous support of the proprietors, the position of a minority can be overruled in certain circumstances if the cost of the scheme does not exceed £40 an acre. Unfortunately, in this scheme the majority of owners could not see their way clear to proceeding and in any event the estimated cost per acre was above £50. I share the regret of the hon. Member in this case. I am sorry it has not been possible to carry it forward in the way that he and I would have liked. However, it is something involving the co-operation of everyone concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) mentioned the question of costs, with which I have already dealt. He also raised the question of consultation with the industry, to which I will come later. I pass to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and thank him for his kind remarks about me. He and I have served together on the Select Committee on Agriculture and I much respect his interest and knowledge of the industry. I agree with him that this is not an electioneering occasion. It is an occasion when we have all tried to show our concern for the present position of the industry.
The hon. Member raised one or two specific points and I will deal first with his point about entry to the Common Market. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in his opening speech in the negotiations, that the question of our hill and upland areas is one of the prime matters for negotiation. I do not think that he can expect me to go any further. He knows my concern because we discussed it in the Select Committee and elsewhere. I give him my absolute assurance that in Scotland we regard this as of prime importance. In passing, I would mention that it is not just a consideration for the United Kingdom or Scotland. I understand that in Norway it is of even greater relative importance to the agricultural problem than it is for us. We should not think of ourselves as alone in the problem of negotiation with Europe. It is a matter of common interest among other countries seeking entry.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of our proposed changes in the system of financial support for agriculture, namely, a changeover to the levy system. I would say "Yes, production grants are an essential part of our system and it is vitally important for our hill and upland areas that we maintain their importance within that system". Obviously, we do not intend to say categorically at this stage that they will stay in exactly the same form, at exactly the same rate. That would be quite unrealistic. We admit their importance and we give an absolute assurance that they will be continued. This will be one of the matters about which we will be consulting the N.F.U.
The hon. Gentleman also asked when the level of costs rise would justify a special review. This is a very subjective question and I am sure that he does not expect a specific answer. This depends not only on the total level of the rise in costs but on the type of costs that rise and the impact they have on the industry.
In our consultations with the N.F.U. we shall watch the cost position closely as well as its impact on the industry. If we feel that a special review under the Agriculture Act, 1947, is justified, then we will have it, but if there are other ways of dealing with this question we will consider them. We will try to act

in the most practicable and expeditious way in dealing with the problems of the industry.
Our whole purpose is to expand home agricultural production. We are changing the system of agricultural support in order to obtain this expansion. This will involve overseas consultation, and indeed my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in reply to a Question has said that we would need to consult overseas suppliers.
I was asked to comment on the labour force in the industry. We too often forget the important part played by the sadly declining labour force in the industry. We cannot afford a further decline in this force if we are to expand production. We owe a very great deal to the workers in the industry and I should like to pay tribute to their loyalty. Their prosperity depends on the prosperity of the industry as a whole. I hope that in our pledge to expand the agricultural industry its workers will share in that expansion and will benefit from the kind of deal we can give to the industry.
I should like to see a labour force that is increasingly skilled, not only in terms of mechanical skills but in terms of responsibility. It must be remembered that one man on a farm can be responsible for equipment worth £20,000 or £30,000. We need young people coming into the industry who are equipped to take on this skilled responsibility.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis for his constructive and helpful speech. He mentioned the remoteness grant, which was a topic raised by the Scottish N.F.U. in discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is a matter that we have agreed to consider in the same way as there is a remoteness grant in Northern Ireland. We have an open mind on the matter, although it is not an easy one. On the one hand it can be said to give flexibility to the Minister, but it is equally clear that in negotiations the amount of this fund would have to be related to the amount of financial support for other schemes. Many people would like to see the same or equivalent support for other schemes as well. It is taxpayers' money and this has always to be borne in mind.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of wool prices. There has been much concern in the industry following this year's Price Review when wool prices for certain grades fell. We will discuss this matter with the farming industry and take it into account at the next Price Review. My hon. Friend referred to two other matters with which I want to deal briefly. The first concerned the management of hill farms generally. As my hon. Friend knows, tremendous work is being done by the Hill Farm Research Organisation in Scotland. It has a research farm in my constituency. Its work on hill management is as important as anything else. By applying its methods, for example, a shepherd can look after a much larger flock. There is tremendous scope, and my Department will do all that it can to encourage that kind of development.
My hon. Friend also mentioned forestry and land use. He was right to do so, because there is concern in the industry. It is not necessarily a question of conflict between agriculture and forestry. It is far more a matter of integration. It has been shown in some areas that, by sensible afforestation, it is possible to increase the stocking rate of sheep. It is in this direction that we want to put our effort, and it is to this end that research work is being done by agricultural colleges in Scotland.
I turn now to the more general points which have been raised in the debate. We are discussing the hill and upland areas—basically our hill sheep and cattle stocks. It is an important debate, because the livestock industry is the biggest sector of Scottish agriculture. But it is not just a matter of agricultural production. As hon. Members have said, it is also a matter of regional and social policy. That is of equal importance, and we must pay attention to it. In his address to the British Association last autumn, Sir Joseph Hutchinson emphasised this point, and it may be that it is more important in the Highland areas than elsewhere.
This is a time at which we have to assess the situation in Scottish agriculture, but I suggest that, after only five weeks in office, it is too early for us to do it. If we are to do a thorough job of assessing problems, we must have sufficient time. I do not belittle the problems,

especially those in sheep rearing. We are looking at costs, and we have asked for evidence from the N.F.U. as soon as possible on fertilisers and other items on which costs are rising.
We are looking closely at the current level of grant uptake. The grants were increased at the last Price Review. To some extent, we can get from the level of uptake an indication of how much money is going to the industry by way of grants. The present level of uptake is considerably higher than it was last year or the year before, and this is an encouraging factor.
We are also considering the current level of prices of stock coming off the hill areas. It is too early to make a general assessment. The first store sales of lambs have only taken place in the last week. While we cannot yet draw firm conclusions, the current level of prices is slightly higher than it was a year ago.
I can assure all hon. Members that we are conducting consultations with the N.F.U. My right hon. Friend and I had a meeting last Friday with its representatives. In spite of all the other burdens and priorities with which we have had to deal since coming into office, my right hon. Friend has been able to find time in the first five weeks of government personally to meet the N.F.U. We had a useful meeting, and I know that it was appreciated by its representatives. At that meeting, among the main points discussed were the problems of our sheep industry. One of the brightest spots in our sheep industry at the moment is the amount of self-help within it. I have always believed, as I know has the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh), that if the industry is to seek help from the Government—and it is right to do so—it must demonstrate its ability to help itself. One way is in marketing. In the formation of the Scotch Quality Lamb Association and the Caithness and Sutherland Livestock Breeders' Association, we have evidence from the industry that it is organising itself into a suitable and proper outlet for quality produce from the industry. It encourages me in trying to help the industry to realise that I am helping an industry which is already trying to help itself.
I accept that the doubts of the industry have been mounting over recent years. I hope that in what I have said tonight I have shown that I am aware of and alive to the problems facing the industry. I hope that I have shown that the Government recognise some of the problems facing the industry. These problems will be looked at urgently over the next weeks and months. We are literally having running consultations with the N.F.U. on these points. As soon as we complete our consultations and our assessment of them, I assure the House that we will not delay in putting forward our policies for dealing with these problems. I am anxious, because I am tremendously interested in the industry, having spent most of my life in it, that we should get the answers to the problems.
I come back to what I said earlier. In seeking these answers we are basically pledged to seek an expansion of the industry, not just in the interests of the industry, but also in the interests of the economy as a whole. We must not only consider what we can save on imports in helping the economy, but also, in the wider context of Europe, expansion of the agricultural industry is something which, if the negotiations are successful, will pave the way to a more easy entry of this country than might appear at first sight.
I have tried to approach the matter in a constructive spirit tonight. In the summer months, whilst the House is in recess, I assure hon. Members that we will not be idle in carrying forward our plans to deal with these problems.

Orders of the Day — DOCTORS AND DENTISTS (PAY)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. We come now to subject No. 4: doctors' and dentists' remuneration. I think that I should point out that the subjects for debate are contained in the Supplementary Estimates between pages 35 and 47 inclusive. This is another of those rather irritating debates in which the subject matter is drawn very tightly. It will be in order to discuss only the reasons for the increases in the Estimates. There are a number of Estimates, each of which has been increased, and it will be in order for hon. Members to speak only as to the reasons. Such matters as

the general scope of the National Health Service would be out of order.

12.48 a.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I fully understand and accept that Ruling.
I should like, first, to make an apology on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) whose name appears on the list of hon. Members wishing to speak in the debate. He is keen to speak, but I fear that he is indisposed. He therefore wishes me to convey his apologies to the House.
The House will recall that we had a debate on the—

Mr. Ian MacArthur: As the hon. Gentleman is making apologies, may I ask whether he proposes to refer to me during his speech tonight? I ask this because he did so on Friday last in an Adjournment debate. I make no complaint about that, nor do I complain about him quoting from an article which I wrote; but he put this in a context which was personal, offensive and inaccurate. It is the agreeable custom in this House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that remarks which are personal, let alone offensive or—

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an abuse of the House. We are discussing Supplementary Estimates and doctors' pay. The hon. Gentleman's intervention has nothing to do with doctors' pay. If the hon. Gentleman wants to raise this issue at some subsequent date, I shall be glad to deal with it, and with him, but do not let the hon. Gentleman indulge in this kind of tactic at this time in the morning.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the point. I think that the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) is straying a little wide of what he is strictly entitled to do. I thought that he was going to make a short intervention. I do not think that we should enter into an extraneous argument on something which is not being raised by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).

Mr. MacArthur: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is an agreeable custom of the House that if an hon. Member proposed to refer to another hon. Member in a personal way, let alone in an offensive and inaccurate way, he


gives notice to the hon. Member concerned before he does so. I suggest, with respect, that this courtesy should be protected in some way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate what the hon. Member is saying, but it is not strictly a point of order. This is a matter between two hon. Members, relating to the ordinary courtesies of the House. I think that we ought to allow the hon. Member for Fife, West to continue with his speech.

Mr. Hamilton: It was neither offensive nor inaccurate, and I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman in due course.
The House will recall that we debated the social services on 13th July, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) referred in some detail to the doctors' pay dispute. In replying to the debate the Secretary of State for Social Services talked, at columns 1175 and 1176, of doctors leaving the service and the country, about a shortage of resources and staff, about the lengthening of waiting lists, and about needing time to consider priorities and balance. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with the question of doctors' pay in one short paragraph, where he talked about the dispute which he was unhappy to inherit, and he went on to say:
I am glad to say that we have re-established the concept of the independent review body subject to the right of the Government to reject or modify any particular recommendation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1176.]
I want to compare that sentiment with the noises made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite pre and during the General Election. They were very different in tone and in content from what the Minister said on 13th July. The noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), now the Minister of State for Defence, said on 27th May:
After eight weeks delay, the doctors and the country as a whole are entitled to a categoric statement …
The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan), who is now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said:
The whole object of setting up the review body was, in the words of the Commission, to guarantee that the standard of living should not be depressed by arbitrary Government action. The ordinary procedure which the Tory Government followed on every occasion was to publish quickly and to follow the award in full.

I go on to quote what was said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), who is now the Minister at the Scottish Office responsible for health matters. It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman is not here, because there is a Supplementary Estimate dealing with Scottish doctors.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: No. The Minister responsible for health matters is not here, and I object to the fact that he is not present.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hamilton: No. The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend abused the privilege of my giving way to him, and I have learned a lesson. The hon. Member for Cathcart said on that occasion:
When the Secretary of State says that no doctor will lose a penny as the result of the delay, does he mean that the doctors will be exempt from any wage or salary freeze that might be imposed by the Government in the event of their coming back?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c. 1783–87.]
The inference was that if he and his party had been in office they would not have subjected the recommendation to any kind of freeze or qualification but would have granted the whole 30 per cent. to the doctors across the board. I ask the Under-Secretary whether the Government intend to accept in full the recommendations of the Kindersley Review Body.
On 28th May the hon. Member for Farnham asked my right hon. Friend then Secretary of State for Social Services
why will he not announce the decision now to accept the recommendations?
I am sorry in the circumstances to refer to the then Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer because I had a genuine respect for the right hon. Gentleman, who will be sadly missed by all of us, but I must refer to remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman subsequently in an election speech. But in the subsequent discussions on 28th May, my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) pointed out that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West had quite recently said
that the way to deal with the wages problem was for the Government particularly to reject all wage demands in the public sector—a policy that would be most unfair to the doctors


as it was when it was applied to the nurses by the previous Conservative Administration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c. 2038–40.]
We all remember the incomes policy applied by the Conservative Government in the early 1960s which hit hard not the doctors but the nurses—2½ per cent.—the probation officers and other similar people. The Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, in his General Election campaign gave an undertaking that the Tory Party would honour the recommendations of the Review Body in full.
The then Shadow Chancellor said, when speaking in Urmston, Manchester, on 9th June,
The doctors have been disgracefully treated.…The Kindersley Committee have been insulted by the Government and are quite right to resign. We always implemented their recommendations promptly and in full. We would have done so this time. It is in Government often inconvenient to have to keep one's word, but it is more important that undertakings to public servants should be, and should be seen to be, honoured.
It was clear before and during the campaign that both the B.M.A. and the Tory Party were determined to make this issue a political football. The Labour Government made an offer which was justifiable, but in the circumstances generous, of 30 per cent. immediately to junior hospital doctors and dentists and trainee G.Ps. and 15 per cent. to consultants, G.Ps. and general dental practitioners. There was in addition the inclusion of an allowance for increased practice expenses which brought the gross rise for G.Ps. up to 20 per cent. The total cost was to be £57 million in one year, which is the Supplementary Estimate that we are talking about today, the £85 million being the cost of the total award.
What did that mean? It meant that for the junior doctors and dentists over a period of two years the top pay of a house officer would rise from £1,450 to £1,884, for a senior house officer from £1,790 to £2,328, for a registrar from £2,220 to £2,886, and for a senior registrar from £2,760 to £3,588—all of those back-dated to 1st April last. In addition, junior house doctors could claim a new extra duty allowance, which I need not go into in detail.
The then Labour Government also decided that senior hospital doctors and

dentists, general practitioners and general dental practitioners should get an immediate 15 per cent. increase; and that that too, would be backdated to 1st April last. The other 15 per cent. was to be referred to the Prices and Incomes Board. That also would be backdated, whatever the Prices and Incomes Board recommended, to 1st April. The Prices and Incomes Board had agreed to submit its report by 15th July—about a week ago.
It is interesting to put some of the facts on record. The public are not aware of the nature of this increase. The present pay of a consultant with an A award up to the point of the increase was £9,275 a year. The pay increase that he was to receive under the Labour Government was £1,393—making a total of £10,668. That was excluding all private practice fees.
If the Kindersley recommendations had been accepted in total immediately the total pay of a consultant would have risen from £9,275 to £12,061. A consultant with a B award, whose then pay was £7,625, was to get an immediate increase of £1,147, making it up to £8,772—again excluding private practice. When the general public, when the dockers, when the miners, when all the lower paid workers in my constituency and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends, see those figures they appreciate just how generous the Labour Government was being.
The Labour Government's recommendations on dentists were in similar terms. Their net income was to be increased from £3,590 to £4,129. The Kindersley recommendations in full were for £4,515 in the first year going up to £4,818 in the second.
Nobody on either side of the House would deny the justice of the claim of the junior hospital doctors. Their inadequate pay, their terrifyingly long hours and dangerous overwork have long been indefensible on any grounds—medical, social or economic. The strain on those young doctors was due in large measure to the inadequate number of trained doctors, which could be directly traced back to the Tory Government's decision—taken in 1957, following the advice tendered to them by the infamous Willink Report—to cut the intake of medical schools by about 10 per cent.


The Tories accepted this, and we are now seeing the result of that short-sighted policy.
The hardship of those junior hospital doctors led them into considerable dispute with the B.M.A. for its failure to press their cause. The B.M.A. was too busy looking after the top bracket men to bother about the junior hospital doctors, and this was one of the reasons why, in my view, the B.M.A. decided to play party politics with this matter.
They refused for a time under the Labour Government, in the run-up to the election, to sign medical certificates. Is any deduction to be made, or has any been made, from doctors' emoluments for not fulfilling their contracts? It is reasonable to say that if a man does not honour a contract, he should be expected to accept some reduction in his emoluments. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are all in favour of honouring legally binding contracts. I take it that a doctor in the N.H.S. has a legally binding contract with the Service, in which event he should, if he does not fulfil that contract, be penalised.
They refused to sign medical certificates throughout the election campaign, and the Review Body resigned en bloc. However, in the event, with the advent of a Conservative Government, the B.M.A.'s attitude changed almost overnight. That revealed to us what many of my hon. Friends had always believed; that, with some honourable exceptions, the medical profession is true blue Tory. They ended their ban on the signing of sickness certificates and their strike threat.
It was an interesting exercise. The nurses in the N.H.S. have never threatened to strike. But the doctors have never hesitated to use the strike weapon, come what may, if they have not got their way. They have had none of the nurses' inhibitions in this respect, particularly when Labour have been in power.
What undertakings have now been given by the Tory Government to bring about this somersault by the doctors? Is it because the Tories have said that they will withdraw the reference to the P.I.B.? Is it because the Tory Government recognise the principle of "an" independent Review Body and not "the"

independent Review Body that existed? This point was put well in an article in the Lancet on 4th July. It said:
The medical profession and the new Government have sensibly found a quick way back from the brink to which the British Medical Association was bundling the National Health Service. After his talks with doctors' and dentists' representatives last Friday, Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. Heath's Secretary of State for Social Services, went so far as to write the letter …
which the Lancet reproduced in full. The article continued:
But just how far is that? The Government in return for the renewal of doctors' co-operation in N.H.S. administration and in the signing of certificates, has withdrawn from the Prices and Incomes Board the second 15 per cent. of the Review Body's recommendations referred to it by the Labour Government and has undertaken to re-establish an independent review body to advise the Government on doctors' and dentists' pay. Not, it has been noted, 'the' Review Body ('our' Review Body, as the doctors often called it), but 'a' review body. Sir Keith reiterates the Royal Commission's proviso that 'obviously compelling reasons' would be needed to justify rejection or modification of the body's advice".
What progress has been made by the doctors to warrant that difference in approach by the Tory Government compared with the former Labour Government? The article continues:
From these slight comforts the B.M.A. has taken heart and sense enough to stop its harassment of the N.H.S. to subdue its talk of resignation, and to accept the Government's offer to enter into very early discussions on the matters of pay now taken back from the Prices and Incomes Board. The right decision has thus been reached by an unnecessary painful path. … All the same, the B.M.A. had no justification for rushing in suspicion and rage to the barricades on June 4,"—
the only reason it did so was that there happened to be a General Election in prospect—
the day the referral was announced, for the Association has now put aside (for good, it is to be hoped) the weapons of non-co-operation and resignation, and yet the situation an June 27 was little different from that on June 4, when the war-cry went up".
The only difference was that there was a different Government. The Government have made it clear that if they find obviously compelling reasons they will justify rejection or modification of that Review Body's advice without reference to any independent body—Prices and Incomes Board or whatever. The Government will have the final decision, and they will presumably explain their reasons to the House as well as to the doctors.
It is as well to remember the terms of reference of the previous Review Body. They were to
advise the Prime Minister on the remuneration of doctors and dentists taking any part in the National Health Service.
Will the new body be advisory or will the Government and the B.M.A. together accept whatever it proposes? If they do, that is a negation of government. The Government must reserve the right to the final say. They must determine what is in the national interest, and if it is not in the national interest to accept the complete recommendations of the Review Body they have the responsibility to say so.
We want the Government to explain how they will get out of their jam. Will they pay the full 30 per cent. immediately? I suspect that the Minister will say that discussions are still going on. That will be typical. We have had this for the past month. The Government must be longing for Friday to get us away for three months so that they can get on with their dirty work.
If they are to give the doctors a 30 per cent. increase right across the board immediately, what kind of reaction do they expect from the trade unions and the lower-paid workers, from the dockers who are now out?

Mr. Ernle Money: Oh.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman tired, or has he got a stomach ache?

Mr. Money: Both.

Mr. Hamilton: Are the Government accepting immediately the award of 30 per cent. across the board for all doctors? If not, why not? But if they are, if they are to accept this now or in the next few weeks, I hope that they will not be surprised if the reaction of other organised workers is the one that they themselves encouraged when they were in opposition, that everyone should get as much as he can, because they always opposed any concept of a prices and incomes policy. If this award were granted to the doctors, I do not know what the reaction would be of the dockers and the agricultural workers. I know what the reaction of miners in my constituency would be.
This would add fuel to the wages explosion which the Prime Minister, then

Leader of the Opposition, talked about during the General Election to try to terrify the hell out of everybody. That explosion would be like a little sparkler by comparison. If the award were given, what would then become of the Government's declared determination to tackle inflation by first holding down very firmly wages and salaries in the public sector? Their commitment during the election was that one of the most important ways to tackle inflation was for the Government to take control over the sector for which they had responsibility. The National Health Service could not be a more public sector. If this award is made, what will the nurses and the medical ancillaries say? Already the nurses are coming back, I hope soon, for a substantial increase on what they have already had under the previous Labour Government. I shall be one of the first to be behind them on that. The Government will release some powerful forces if they accept this recommendation.
If it is granted, another question arises. How will that square with the pledge to cut public expenditure? All kinds of contradictions arise from acceptance or rejection of this recommendation. If, however, the Government intend to welsh on their election pledges on this matter, will the B.M.A. then threaten strike action against the Tory Government? It will be interesting to see. Also, how many of them will emigrate? The Secretary of State for the Social Services talked about the doctors emigrating if they did not get this 30 per cent. Presumably they will go in hordes to Canada and the United States and elsewhere, and there will be none left. Or will they be prepared to accept from their own Tory Government scales of remuneration no more generous than those offered by the Labour Government?
Whatever the outcome of the current negotiations between the Minister and the B.M.A., the statement should be made initially to this House. I suspect, however, that many statements will be made in the recess which the Government are not prepared to make to this House, and this is one of them. This is one of the reasons why some of us will be speaking in the debate on the Adjournment Motion on Thursday—because we suspect that many of the decisions based on the recommendations


of the Kindersley Committee will be made during the recess.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman can assure us that that will not happen, but that the statement will be made to the House. I do not expect him to make it tonight: I am sure that he will not. They do not agree with instant Government. Sometimes they do—we have had one or two instances of instant Government—but this will not be one of those cases. I suspect that they will get into cahoots with the B.M.A., and either welsh on what they said before the election, or else give them the 30 per cent. and take the consequences.

1.20 a.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and to pursue the question of remuneration offered to doctors as laid down in the Estimates.
This was a totally unnecessary pay dispute. Since the Tory Government came to power they have wooed the doctors with soft words. Like my hon. Friend, I am anxious to know what attitude the Government will take over the balance of the award. If the statement is made that the whole amount is to be allowed, I underline and reiterate warnings that have been given that this will have a serious effect on the whole of industry and claims now in the pipeline. It would be grossly inequitable and unfair, particularly, as my hon. Friend said, because the levels in certain echelons of the medical profession are very high indeed.
Consultants with the top merit award are often receiving as basic pay from the National Health Service for what is a part-time job more than Cabinet Ministers. They do an easier job, which carries less responsibility and probably less work. If the Government accede to this, it will have repercussions throughout the whole industrial scene. Probably the Government will be very sorry that they have sparked that off. I hope that they will proceed with caution.
The situation immediately before the General Election was rather ugly. Doctors who very frequently with hand on heart take a rather pious attitude to certain problems affecting the profession,

particularly to problems about which Members of Parliament have been rather active in introducing legislation, were prepared to take industrial action. They were prepared to impose sanctions to get what they wanted from the Government. They were prepared to create so much difficulty and chaos within the administration of the Health Service that they were risking their patients being affected. This is something which doctors always say they do not want to see. They say that their medical training precludes them from doing this. Yet they were prepared to go to those lengths. It was an ugly prospect.
The Review Body, doing its best for the medical profession, made strenuous efforts, but when the Government were faced with a 30 per cent. rise right across the board, they were bound to pause for it would be in breach of prices and incomes policy. I think doctors and the profession have damaged their own image vis-à-vis the general public, and certainly vis-à-vis politicians. They have not helped their own case but rather inferred that politicians are always opposed to the profession. They think that we are "paper tigers" not prepared to take necessary action which is the natural consequence of policies we have introduced and pursued.
According to the Estimate, we are giving £57 million, a very considerable amount and a considerable proportion of all the money spent on the National Health Service and salaries. This is given as a 30 per cent. increase for lower paid doctors and represents a 15 per cent. increase for higher grades pending the report by the Prices and Incomes Board. This is not the only increase that has been given under a Labour Government, nor the first. In 1966 and in 1969 there were increases for the medical profession. It is not true that a Labour Government have always refused to implement increases to the profession. There were those two increases during the lifetime of the last Labour Government.
My hon. Friend gave some information about what these awards mean. Supplementing what my hon. Friend said, as a result of the 30 per cent. award the top pay of house officers rises from £1,450 to £1,884 per annum, an increase of £8 7s. 0d. a week. Compared with the weekly allowance granted to a widow


this is a considerable increase and is what many people have to live on as total income. The top pay for a registrar increases from £2,220 to £2,886 per annum.
The pay of a typical general practitioner rises by £21 a week. General practitioners are ready to pose before the general public as being grossly overworked and grossly underpaid. An increase of £21 per week is a considerable increase. I do not begrudge general practitioners the increase, because they work very hard and are some of the hardest working members of the profession.
The pay of a top consultant working in the Health Service rises from £9,275 to £10,668 per annum, an increase of £27 a week, which is about equivalent to the national industrial wage on which many families have to live. Many families live on much less. There is the increase in the average dentist's pay. All these considerable increases are backdated to 1st April. 1970.
For junior hospital doctors there is the extra duty allowance. They can claim units for time off. A hospital doctor who works for a certain number of units can receive extra pay—£6 per unit for a house officer to £13 10s. 0d. a unit for assistant grade. A pre-registration house officer on £1,626 per annum who worked three extra units a fortnight would get £480 per annum extra.
I do not think that anybody would grudge these increases to junior hospital doctors. The recent Press and television publicity devoted to the life that junior hospital doctors must live—long hours, long spells of duty without time off—has shown that these increases are well justified. The mind boggles at the long hours these doctors work and the complicated and varied types of work they are called on to undertake when the consultants are sleeping soundly in their beds. No self-respecting trade union in any other profession or trade would have tolerated the conditions that junior hospital doctors have tolerated for so long.
I stress that I am not opposing any part of the additional remuneration that has gone to the junior hospital doctors. It is well deserved.
During the election campaign we were attacked by the Conservatives for agreeing to meet only the £57 million. The Conservatives certainly gave the impression that they would have been quite happy if we had allowed the whole £85 million. That does not fit in with the pledge to curb expenditure in publicly owned industries, nor with the pledge to reduce expenditure. It does not even fit in with their pledge to reduce taxation, because to provide the £85 million means that the money has to come from somewhere and, presumably, it comes from the general consumer—in other words, the taxpayer.
It would appear, therefore, that if the whole claim is to be met, taxation has to go up or the service provided within the National Health Service has to be reduced. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State, when he replies, will be good enough to tell us how the money is to be found if the Government intend to meet the whole claim. The situation needs very careful consideration by the Government and we are anxious to know exactly what stand they are taking.
It could be said that if the money is available and the Government intend to provide the additional £30 million or so for the award, there are other ways in which the money might be spent. The junior hospital doctors might have an additional claim for improved conditions of work and amenities. There is great difficulty in many hospitals concerning the accommodation that is provided for junior hospital doctors.
Sixty per cent. of the medical students who qualified last year from the teaching hospitals in the Birmingham, Oxford and Bristol areas were married, but in the areas covered by those hospitals only 35 per cent. of them had married quarters to offer. Here is an immediate example of where money should be spent, perhaps, rather than giving the award to the consultants, to much better purpose. This would certainly aid recruiting, and the Government must clearly be concerned about recruiting for the National Health Service. Therefore, the building of better married accommodation for young hospital doctors and the provision of better facilities for them in hospital represents an important claim, because—the hon. Gentleman may not


know this—some junior hospital doctors do not even have a peg on which to hang their coat or a cupboard in which to put their possessions.

The Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): indicated assent.

Mrs. Short: They are almost as badly off as some Members of Parliament, although male Members of Parliament at least have a hook on which to hang their swords, so that they have some amenities that junior hospital doctors do not have.
Although we have provided a great deal more money for hospital building, more money is always needed. If the Government were so minded, more could be provided from this additional money for salaries. The speeding up of procedures on out-of-date planning delays which hold back hospital building is a matter to which the Government should have regard.
The utilisation of the services of the medical profession at all levels—not only doctors, middle grades and consultants, but general practitioners, too—the development of the general practitioner service and the community service and the provision of after-care facilities for patients after discharge from district general hospitals and the medical supervision that is needed for those patients, could lead to a very high standard of medical care and would yield dividends, because we could then provide bed norms of two per 1,000 for acute beds. This is something that the Government should be thinking about in the future development of the service.
If we are looking for real advantage in the hospital service as a whole, we should develop group training schemes for nurses and other staff rather than spend this money on providing inflated salaries for the top consultants. We should consider the establishment of a compendium for the equipment which has to go into all the new hospitals which we are building similar to that now instituted for building components. This, again, could be of great value and would in many ways save money in the future. Further, we should study ways and means of introducing more automation into hospitals, another way of saving money on salaries and wages within the service.
We should look to post-graduate education as a means of educating general practitioners and adding to the qualifications of junior hospital doctors, helping them to go up the ladder and be able to earn the better salaries given to consultants. The blockage at consultant level is a matter of great concern to junior hospital doctors. The Government ought to give attention to these things so as to improve the lot of the junior hospital doctor.
In its report published earlier this month, the Central Health Services Council suggests that there ought to be provision of a family planning service within the National Health Service available to all patients without charge. This would be a means of saving a good deal of money not only in the service itself but throughout the whole range of Government social expenditure which could bring great dividends if only the Minister would accept that recommendation in the report and implement it.
If the Government are willing to spend the additional money required to meet the Review Body's recommendation, there are better ways of spending it within the National Health Service so as to give better value and a better return not only for the patients but for the doctors working within the service.
I am convinced that we have the best health service in the world. In spite of the criticism, sometimes the carping criticism, which we frequently hear from doctors and people outside the National Health Service who ought to know better, and even from some politicians, we have a marvellous Health Service of which we should be proud. We all ought to support it and defend it. Those who are coming all the time from abroad to look at our hospitals endorse that view and are envious of the kind of hospital service we have.
Doctors working in the National Health Service, and in our hospitals in particular, ought to understand how lucky they are to work in such a service and such hospitals as we have. They ought to understand that they can advance within their profession, they can achieve the sort of ideal conditions which all of them want, and they can have the kind of hospital equipment they want and the fruits of advances in medical science and research only in co-operation with politicians. They cannot have it without us.
I hope, therefore, that this whole affair of the award will have had a salutary and calming effect on the leaders of the medical profession and that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will, in effect, take careful note of what has been said from these benches tonight. I hope that they will make their proposals to the House of Commons, not leaving the matter till the recess when we cannot get at them. If they are willing to spend more money, let them consider some of the eight or nine suggestions which I have made, which would bring enormous benefit to doctors and to patients.

1.40 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): May I start by expressing my regret that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) is indisposed? He is an assiduous questioner on this subject and I should have welcomed his intervention in this short debate.
The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) covered a fairly wide canvas in recapitulating the antecedents of the present consideration of the 12th Kindersley Report and some of the drama that went before it. The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) ranged even wider with a skill which I envied and greatly enjoyed. I should like to debate with her further the more general items of National Health Service policy, but tonight we ought to confine ourselves to the narrower issue raised by the hon. Member for Fife, West, the issue of the proposed increase. This must be set in the context of the different priorities within the Service, and it is on this claim, this invitation to the Government to spend more, that we have to focus our attention this evening.
May I assure the hon. Lady that I have carefully noted the points she has made and the priorities she has listed? I agree with much of what she has said. We must nevertheless include the doctors as part and parcel of the excellence of the Service to which she rightly referred. We must not tend to set them off as a sort of liability, as the hon. Member for Fife, West did when he talked about them being all true blue Tories. Coming from him, that was a suggestion that they were a liability to the Service, and I was

glad when he qualified that by saying that they were not all true blue Tories.
At this late hour, I do not propose to weary the House with a detailed recapitulation of the facts, now fairly well known in the House and the country, surrounding the 12th Kindersley Report. We believe that the present Administration inherited a genuinely unhappy situation from their predecessors. This is not a situation, as the hon. Member for Fife, West implied it was, arising from malevolent political ill will on the part of the doctors. I refute that.
The doctors are a body of professional people whose interests are meant to be guarded by the Pilkington and Kindersley procedures. They have felt that they had their fingers burnt in 1966, when there was a squeeze and freeze following the 7th Report, and they saw the same hazard looming again as we came into the period of the general election following the publication of the 12th Report. We should sympathise with their genuine misgivings that once again they were to become a political shuttlecock.
It was precisely this that the Pilkington and Kindersley review procedures were meant to try to avoid. One of the first actions of my right hon. Friend on taking office as Secretary of State for Social Services was to meet representatives of the doctors and the dentists and have talks with them. As a result of those talks on 26th June, the professions resumed co-operation. I am happy to say, in Health Service administration and in the signing of medical certificates.
I should specifically interpose at this point that no reduction in the emoluments for doctors is envisaged by the present Government, because we want to preserve the atmosphere and spirit of co-operation, which, I am happy to say, has been restored. Nothing is more likely to undermine co-operation and the right spirit of co-operation than vindictive retrospection in the application of penalties.

Mr. William Hamilton: Would the hon. Gentleman now say that, whichever worker is in breach of contract, if he is a Government employee, or is paid by the Government, then the Government will take no action against him? I thought that the Tories were in favour of the sanctity of contract.

Mr. Alison: The spirit of the matter is that in every case where legalism might rear its ugly head there is nevertheless scope for discretion and human flexibility. This is the principle we would wish to apply, whether to the dockers or the doctors. The Government for their part, following the return to co-operation by the doctors in the N.H.S., withdrew the outgoing Government's reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes of certain recommendations of the Kindersley Review Body's 12th Report. We expressed our willingness, and this is a key point in the restoration of the right spirit of co-operation, to arrange for the re-establishment of an independent review body to advise the Government on doctors' and dentists' pay. Here I take up a question raised by the hon. Member for Fife, West as to whether the re-establishment is to be of an advisory body. The answer is quite specifically "Yes, an advisory body, no more and no less." It will be independent and impartial, we believe, but advisory.

Mr. William Hamilton: No change.

Mr. Alison: No change in this sense. The withdrawal of the reference to the Prices and Incomes Board has not escaped criticism, both tonight and at other times. The position is quite clear and it is the fundamental issue in the dispute which has arisen between the outgoing Government and the doctors. We regard it—as I think the doctors regard it—as inappropriate for the findings of one review body to be referred to, as it were, a second umpire, a second jury or a second review body. It is not fitting that advice received from the proper advisory body should be further scrutinised by other advisors. This is bound to undermine the confidence of those whose advice is sought and tendered in the first place, officially and statutorily.
Let me remind the House of the terms of reference of the Kindersley Review Body. It is:
to advise the Prime Minister"—
and here I stress the point that the hon. Member for Fife West was seeking to make—
on the remuneration of doctors and dentists taking any part in the N.H.S.

In our view, and this is not a matter of issue with the professions, it is for the government of the day, and I accept the obligation which the hon. Gentleman sought to lay upon us, to reach their conclusions on whether they can accept in full the advice given to them, or whether, for compelling reasons they have to reject or modify them. We do not attempt to dodge this. It is well understood by the professions. This body is an advisory body, reaching conclusions independently and impartially, but it does not evacuate the right or obligation of the government of the day, and no other body, to assess and consider the advice tendered to them and maybe to modify or even reject that advice if compelling reasons arising from the national interest make it necessary to do so.

Mr. William Hamilton: One of the points that I was making was that this kind of statement was very different from the statements made in the course of the General Election when the Shadow Chancellor and the present Prime Minister said specifically that they would give the award in full, with no qualifications whatever.

Mrs. Renée Short: The Prime Minister said that the whole of the £87 million should be given.

Mr. Alison: Perhaps I had better get on to the selective quotations by the hon. Member for Fife, West, from speeches made in the General Election by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose untimely death all hon. Members regret. I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words on that matter.
There is no doubt that on one occasion my late right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West, said that we had always implemented Kindersley's recommendations in full and would have done so this time. I do not attempt to deny this, but he made it clear very shortly afterwards that all depended on the economic situation.

Mrs. Renée Short: Ah!

Mr. Alison: Which can only be judged by the Government of the day in possession of all the facts.

Mrs. Renée Short: That is what we were doing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order.

Mr. Alison: This is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pressed for time and again in asking whether there was a national emergency and in saying that we would have to look at the books.

Mr. William Hamilton: He said there was an emergency.

Mr. Alison: It is not true to say he said there was. My reading of the script of the famous Press conference—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed this debate to range very widely indeed and I hope that no hon. Member will take advantage of that fact.

Mr. Alison: Perhaps I must restrain myself in chasing hares raised by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady opposite. The truth of the exchanges in the General Election, as I understand them, is that acting on the precedents of the Tory years, when we had no reason to do other than implement all the Kindersley proposals, we thought it the proper and normal course to implement in full. The 64,000 dollar question then and now was whether there was an economic emergency. It would be reasonable for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to say that we would implement in full subject to there being no emergency. The question he put was whether or not there was an emergency.
I turn briefly to the present. This will bear on the request by the hon. Gentleman for an ex cathedra statement from my right hon. Friend before Friday or from me tonight about what the future holds. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had a series of meetings, as was foreshadowed in his letter to Dr. Gibson of 27th June, with representatives of the medical and dental professions about the remuneration questions withdrawn from the National Board for Prices and Incomes. I believe that both they and we now understand each other's viewpoint more clearly as a result. These discussions are still going on. It would be improper for me to lay down any time table by the end of which they should be drawn to a conclusion.

Consultations and discussions of this sort should not be carried on against any background of haste or undue duress on either side. The hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of trade union negotiations, realises that negotiations between employers and those who are employed by them should allow maximum flexibility for consideration by both parties in reaching a common mind on the matters withdrawn from the N.B.P.I.
With regard to an annoucement before Friday, I can do not better than quote the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House on 2nd July:
… an announcement will be made at the appropriate time. The Government will pursue their own policies and they will inform the House accordingly when they take decisions—and not at the behest of right hon. Gentlemen opposite."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1970, Vol. 803, c. 91]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL MARKETING COUNCIL

1.55 a.m.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I welcome the opportunity to follow the eloquent speech of the Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security, and I also welcome the opportunity of entering into the ancient practice of this House whereby we ensure that no Supply is granted without redress.
I wish to speak on the specific Supplementary Estimate, Class IV.11.0, the National Marketing Council. I intend to indicate to the House the objectives of the Council, then briefly to deal with the vindication or otherwise of supporting the Council, then to look at the need to support marketing in the British economy, and lastly to look at one or two suggestions for improvements in this type of organisation in the future.
My first task is to look at the objectives of the Council. It held its first meeting in September, 1965, I am informed. The date is important, in view of what I have to say later. The objectives of the Council are, first, to assist and as necessary, reinforce the efforts of existing organisations which are dedicated to the promotion of a wider knowledge of marketing and the adoption of sound marketing attitudes and practices and, secondly, to support the


needs of the national economy by guiding industrial and commercial effort in line with marketing requirements in general and exports in particular. I do not think that hon. Members on either side would quarrel with those general objectives. They are laudable and should be supported. But difficulty arises in trying to implement them.
The reasons for the difficulty are many and varied, but two at least should be brought to the attention of the House. The first is the composition of the Council. It is much too widely based and, as a result, there is difficulty in getting the efforts of the Council to gel. Serving on it are representatives of industry, the professional experts and their organisations, and the universities and other academic interests.
The second is the need in a body of this nature to realise that different industrial groupings require different marketing outlooks. I shall say a little more on that latter point in my concluding remarks.
Industry's traditional views of economies throughout our history have been directed to trying to produce economies of scale which were distinctly related to plant size. The people who dominated and controlled our major industrial companies tended in the main to be production engineers, with the result that the importance of gauging the market became a secondary consideration. This is still true. Economies of scale in plant size are important. In the chemical industry, for example, they are perhaps of supreme importance. But now other economies are just as important. There is the economy of research and development, the economy in marketing and, indeed, the economy of management.
I draw to the attention of the Minister, if he has not already seen it, the C.B.I.'s report on Industry, Science and the Universities—the Docksey Report. I draw his attention, in particular, to its wide ranging definition of activities covered by research and development:
An activity which involves the application of the scientific approach and method to the improvement of all aspects of the activities of the company. This covers the organisation and management of the industrial unit the development of the relevant technologies, and the manufacturing processes, as well as improving the design and use of existing and new products.

That strikes me, as it did the Docksey Committee, as a more wide-ranging definition of activities covered by research and Development. The Minister ought to look at the implications of that wide-ranging definition for the investment decision and, therefore, the importance, before the investment decision is taken, of gauging the market accurately. All too often in British industry—there are numerous examples—we have involved ourselves in research and development expenditure and in investment decisions without gauging the market properly.
I refer the Minister to two reports in particular—there are other examples that I could quote—where this was illustrated. The first is the Report of the Plowden Committee of Inquiry into the Aircraft Industry, Command 2853, paragraph 343:
A successful civil aircraft programme must be backed by an effective market research organisation. In Britain the quality of the market research has been uneven. Sometimes it has been good. Thorough studies preceded the launching of the BAC 1–11; and the Committee have been impressed by much of the work undertaken by Rolls-Royce. But in general it has not been good enough. Optimistic expectations of sales have too often been belied; and the British share of the markets has consistently been over-estimated.
Here is an important British industry which has suffered, in the view of an important Committee, from inadequate market research.
Another important industry very dear to my heart is the shipbuilding industry. Again, I quote from an objective appraisal of the industry's status, the Geddes Committee's Report, Command 2937, paragraph 141:
The fundamental but intangible change required on the part of shipbuilding firms is one of attitude and outlook which can be summed up as becoming more market-orientated. Assessments of future market requirements, based on market research, must govern the firm's central policy decisions.
That further quotation indicates clearly that these investment decisions in the past have not been taken on a sound basis of assessing the market.
I have referred to two instances in the private sector. However, in the public sector we have some examples of industries being re-orientated because they have adjudged anew the market. A good example is the work of the Gas Council and the various Gas Boards which in this case had a product with the aura


of Victoriana about it, but were capable, through good plant design and anticipating future market requirements, to refurbish the industry.
The electricity supply industry is another example. I particularise the excellent work done in the North of Scotland by the North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board. This is a good example of public enterprise anticipating the needs of consumers and going out to persuade consumers that they should take a particular product.
In a large and expanding public sector there are other requirements of guiding the market and conditioning it. We are persuaded that in future we ought to have much more participation in the economic decision-making process. We have managed in our deliberations and endeavours through the centuries to emancipate the electorate in the political decision-making process. Our difficulty with a massive and, we hope, expending public sector is to get the same degree of participation in the economic sector.
Both sides of the House are concerned with trying to get value for money and with trying to anticipate the new needs both in the private and the public sector. I submit that this is the function of the entrepreneur. The private sector is rightly concerned with its market for projects and services, and so ought the public sector to be.
In my past endeavours I have had some association with the Salvation Army, and I have always taken the view held by General Booth, that the devil should not have all the best tunes, so I am naturally anxious, as a Socialist, to ensure that the public sector gets the same degree of attractiveness for its products as the private sector. I therefore want to see some of the market research techniques put into the public sector to persuade people that they ought not to assess their standards of living purely on their disposable income, but to take into consideration, through certain advertising blandishments if one likes, the value of certain public expenditure.
I am intrigued by the Government's introduction of business men into the public sector to examine certain areas of public expenditure. I had hoped that if this was developed we could have expected an expansion of public sector expenditure

based on the assessment and anticipation of new needs. However, I am told in an article in the Guardian of 18th July, and I quote the appointment of Mr. Mark Schreiber, that
The long-term objective is to focus the pattern of Government spending more closely on the needs of the 1970s, and to reduce Government expenditure considerably.
I submit that if we apply the techniques of market research on this, and I know that some of the Prime Minister's appointments have been marketing people; one, Mr. Meyjes, was marketing co-ordinator—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope the hon. Member will recognise that the discussion permissible on this Vote is rather narrower than he is making it. I do not want to confine the discussion more closely than I need to, because of its narrowness, but I hope that hon. Members will not extend the scope of the debate too much.

Mr. Douglas: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but one of the functions of this Council—and I quote from the objectives of the Promotional Committee—is
to ensure that a greater awareness of the need for better marketing is spread among the business community, Government and the public at large in the most speedy, practical and effective way.
If that is one thing that we are supporting, we ought to make use of it, and I am submitting that the Government are making use of marketing techniques by employing people. My doubt about this appointment is that I am not so sure of Shell.
In my concluding remarks let me look at what has been happening to this Council, and try to put forward one or two suggestions which the Minister might consider to improve the position. I have drawn attention to some of the deficiencies. The body was established in 1965 and, from my investigations, has done very little work. It has supported one or two international conferences which no doubt have been valuable, but the basis for work in promoting marketing research orientation in industry, the universities and other institutions of higher education has to be founded anew. I am not privy to the decisions of the C.B.I. but I understand that the C.B.I.


is aware of this deficiency and I suggest that the Minister should contact the C.B.I. to see whether Government, industry and the universities can start anew. It is very important. I believe that four or five years have been wasted. We need an organisation which is broadly based, representing industry, the Government, possibly the professional organisations and certainly the universities and other institutions of higher education—and industry should include both public and private sectors. If we are to have a market-oriented outlook, an organisation such as the Consumer Council must be consulted in this broadly based structure.
But there is much more hope if we try one or two experiments on a regional basis. As a tentative suggestion, to which I cannot expect an answer now, I submit that a possible way to do it is to look at Scotland as a fruitful base. I say that because my alma mater was the University of Strathclyde, and in that university we have the largest management school in Western Europe. There is no lack of individuals concerned who might associate with industry and the Government to get off the ground an organisation which might persuade Scottish industry to more market orientation. There is emerging in Scotland a business school, and this strikes me as a good opportunity to give the University of Strathclyde, which has this management school and large resources for building up the nucleus of marketing, a chance to experiment with both sides of industry and consumer organisations to see whether we can persuade Scottish industrialists to be more market oriented than has been the case in the past. If we were to enter the European Economic Community—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not test the Chair again. He is stretching the debate too far from the Vote, which is much narrower than is the last subject which he mentioned.

Mr. Douglas: With respect, I am drawing to a conclusion. Whether or not there is an extension of the Common Market, we shall be involved in intense international competition, and therefore it is very important to get our industry to adopt market orientation. This type of organisation which we have been supporting

in the past does not strike me as a fruitful organisation for continued support, and I hope that the Minister will examine my suggestions and that we shall see some action. It would not involve an enormous amount of Government expenditure. Indeed, it would involve very little.

2.14 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Grant): The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) has a short advantage over me in that he made his maiden speech on 9th July—I was not privileged to be present to hear it, but I read it with considerable interest—whereas I, alas, have to make my maiden appearance at this Dispatch Box today. I suggest that we have this in common; we would wish this appearance had taken place at a more congenial hour. The hon. Member's speech was interesting and constructive, and it will be studied with interest not only by the Government but by other bodies concerned with this subject. In so far as the hon. Member's suggestions did not involve the expenditure of public money I can assure him that they struck a sympathetic chord.
The hon. Member has chosen a very wide subject, and has rightly placed it in the widest context, subject to the rules of order. The subject is wide because the term "marketing" does not simply embrace what might be called the marketing skills, the art of promoting, advertising and selling products; it includes a theory of business organisation. There are many definitions of marketing and the marketing concept, but the essence of them is that business enterprises, in the manufacturing or the services section, should be organised and directed so as to use their resources to satisfy the needs of the purchasers and consumers for the benefit of, them both. Companies that aim at meeting the requirements of their markets are naturally more competitive and in the long run more profitable.
In defining marketing and its importance to the individual firm one is to a large extent also explaining its importance to the national economy. The strength of our economy and our exports depends on the efficiency and competitiveness of our industry. Marketing assists firms in planning and using their resources to maximum advantage; marketing skills


and techniques are a necessary element of a firm's competitiveness. Just as important, the object of marketing is also to satisfy the consumer; consumer satisfaction is not measurable in terms of our national income statistics but it is one of the main points of our economic effort.
I should make a special mention of the need for companies to be market-orientated in their approach to exporting. It will only be by chance that a company has a product that will meet exactly the requirements of foreign buyers. It is necessary therefore for companies to be sensitive to the needs of the overseas markets to which they are selling. There are exceptions—in some cases the "foreign-ness" of a product may be a strong selling point—but in the main exporters must be prepared to adapt their products and, if necessary, their business organisation if they are to develop their overseas trade to the full. This can be done only if firms have proper information about the characteristics and potential of the market at which they are aiming. Adequate and continuing market research is a vital part of marketing strategy.
The hon. Member has raised this subject in the context of the grant in aid which the Government are to make to the National Marketing Council. I should explain that the reason that the money was requested under the supplementary procedure was that until this year the National Marketing Council received its grant from the Government through the British Productivity Council. It was decided by the previous Government, following the reorganisation of Departmental responsibilities, when the sponsorship of the British Productivity Council was transferred to the Department of Employment and Productivity, that a separate Vote should be created for the National Marketing Council. That decision was taken after the main Estimates had been prepared and gave rise to the present Supplementary Estimate. The grant is not a new one.
The National Marketing Council was set up in 1965 to supplement the efforts of the existing marketing organisations in promoting better knowledge and acceptance of sound marketing methods, and to support the needs of the national

economy by guiding commercial and industrial effort in line with existing requirements in general and exports in particular. The Council has provided a point of contact between the main bodies concerned with marketing. It is perhaps more widely known for its work in securing candidates for the marketing courses that it helps to arrange or publicise each summer at Harvard, Fontainbleau and Cambridge. The Government's grant is and has been intended to assist with the administrative expenses of this work. So far, some 800 senior and middle management executives have participated in the courses at these institutions and one hopes that it has been to their benefit and that of their firms.
The hon. Gentleman was pushing a little about what the Government's policy was towards the National Marketing Council and to marketing generally. As I think I showed earlier, the Government are concerned that management at all levels should be aware of the importance of marketing and its relevance to their business activity. There is a need to promote this awareness and an acceptance of modern marketing techniques and methods. The question of how best this can be done is at present under consideration by the National Marketing Council and by the C.B.I., together with the other marketing bodies. This consideration also includes the future of the National Marketing Council itself.
It is my view and it may have been the view of the previous Government that the task of convincing management of the importance of marketing and the need to integrate marketing into their business organisations can only be undertaken by industry itself, or through a body which commands the support of industry in general. Unless those who are committed to the marketing philosophy and practice it are prepared to demonstrate their commitment, no amount of exhortation by others will be successful. For this reason, I welcome the acceptance by the Confederation of British Industry of the need to consider ways of spreading the marketing message.
I am pleased to tell the House that the C.B.I. decided last week to establish a marketing committee composed of members of the C.B.I., and representatives of the marketing organisations.


This will provide a forum for the discussion of means of increasing wider acceptance within industry of the marketing concept: I welcome this initiative. I cannot forecast what may be decided or what arrangements may be made about the National Marketing Council, but I have listened with great interest to what the hon. Member has said, and others concerned with this subject will also have taken note of his concluding remarks. I assure him that I and my Department will take a close interest in marketing and developments in this field in future.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS

2.23 a.m.

Mr. Thomas Cox: This is a late hour, but this is a subject of national importance. I wish to speak on the valuable work done by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Its work covers safety on the roads, in the home and industry. Ever-increasing numbers of industrial accidents are taking place, with work people being killed or seriously injured as a result, so it is right that this House should discuss this subject.
Recently the President of RoSPA said:
There are bound to be more things that R.o.S.P.A. can do in this field and, indeed, other things are planned. But it should be a very sobering thought to managing directors that, with the means already available, they could probably halve the accident rates in their factories by a continuous, genuine and intelligent display of personal concern.
In 1968—the last year for which I have been able to obtain figures—625 people were killed as a result of industrial accidents, compared with 564 killed in 1967. In 1968, 312,430 people suffered industrial injuries, compared with 304,016 in 1967. This is an indication of the ever-increasing problem we face with industrial accidents and why we must do everything possible to reduce these figures.
The Vote to which I am speaking is for a sum of £14,090 and the revised provision is for £14,100, a very small increase and one which I do not relish with great enthusiasm because it is far too small for the important work for which the Society is responsible.
Already, in the life of this Parliament, hon. Members have been asking Questions about industrial safety and Government action on the subject. Yesterday the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) asked what assistance the Minister of Public Building and Works was giving to publicise methods of preventing accidents in the construction industry. In this connection, in his Annual Report, the Chief Inspector of Factories comments:
There were 238 fatal accidents"—
on construction sites—
during 1968, an increase of 20 per cent. This was particularly disappointing since in 1967 the number of fatalities had fallen below 200 for the first time in 10 years.
Some of my hon. Friends put their names to Motion No. 11 which appears on the Notice Order Paper. Headed "Safety for Industrial Workers," it refers to a statement made by the Director General of the British Safety Council, who said that there were nearly 23½ million working days lost in 1968 as a result of industrial accidents, compared with less than 5 million lost through industrial disputes.
In my maiden speech I spoke of industrial relations. I have never minimised the importance that we must place on improving relations and in finding ways to solve industrial disputes. I hope that we will not minimise the importance of trying to reduce the number of days lost through industrial accidents. When one considers the cost involved in days lost through accidents, one realises why this number must be reduced. It has been estimated that in one working day, about 75,000 people are off work because of some various sorts of industrial accidents. The sum of £43 million was paid out for National Health Service treatment to people who had suffered industrial accidents—this at a time when my right hon. and hon. Friends have been commenting on the need to develop the N.H.S., and at the very time when there are many demands on our financial resources to tackle some of our social issues. We pay out this sum of money because of industrial accidents. I have discovered that about £40 million a year is paid out by insurance companies to people who have had accidents at work. The total cost with the loss of production and the cost to the N.H.S. is well over £200 million a year.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because the subject is so narrowly drawn that it would be difficult to keep within its confines, but I hope that he will keep more closely to the Vote in question than he has been doing.

Mr. Cox: I sought advice on the matter because of the very point you have made, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and was told that provided I gave the details of the reasons why I believed that the Vote should be increased I should be in order. That is what I have tried to do.
The work undertaken by the Royal Society in this field should be encouraged. There are exhibitions, leaflets, displays and conferences which bring to the notice of both workers and management its important rôle. This is why I believe more money should be allocated by the Government to its work, for while management may suffer from accidents at work, in that production may have to stop, this bears no relation to the suffering often experienced by the worker involved and his family.
We can equate with the problem of industrial safety the fact that when industrial accidents take place there is often a tendency for industrial disputes to follow. A group of workers may argue that there were not sufficient safety provisions. About 30 to 40 per cent. of industrial disputes occur because of working conditions. This is another reason why industrial safety is so important.
So far as I have been able to discover, very little money is spent in this country on trying to find out the reasons for industrial accidents. Because of the respect that the Royal Society commands from both workers and management it is just the body that should be entrusted with research into why industrial accidents are on the increase in this country. Such work cannot take place unless there is adequate money to support it. I have not been able to discover the total spent in this country on industrial safety, but the total expenditure of the Royal Society on industrial safety in 1968 was £203,679, a small sum when we consider the very responsible work that it undertakes.
Many hon. Members may say that it is all right for me to talk in this vein, but that there are many other services

needing money, and they may ask, "Where are we to obtain it?"
The Industrial Injuries Fund, I understand, has a balance of £300 million and interest on it amounts to something over £15 million a year. Is it not possible for a small percentage of the assets of the Fund to be given to organisations such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents? I hope that the Minister will be in no doubt that many hon. Members on this side of the House do not intend to see the carnage of lives and injury to workers continue as in recent years. We support the Society and hope to hear not only that the Government support it but that they intend to give it a much greater degree of financial support for the work that it does.

2.36 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Dudley Smith): Apart from his closing words, I thought the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) approached this subject with moderation and good sense. When I first heard that he had chosen this subject for debate tonight, I thought that I might have the opportunity of congratulating him on his maiden speech, but, as he has reminded us, he has already made that in this Parliament on the subject of industrial relations. I find myself in the position of making a maiden venture, because this is my first appearance at this Dispatch Box, although I have had the experience of speaking from the Dispatch Box opposite.
This is an important subject. As the hon. Member has told us, the work of the Society is well known. It covers a very wide field, particularly with road safety, and accidents in the home, as well as with safety in industry which the hon. Member has raised tonight.
Of the Society's annual budget of approximately £¾ million, its Industrial Division, which is concerned with industrial accident prevention, accounts for something of the order of £200,000—considerably less than one-third. I mention these facts to put the Industrial Division, which is what we are concerned with, in its proper context. Let me make quite clear that the work of the Society's Industrial Division has always been


highly valued by the Department of Employment and Productivity and, before that, by the Ministry of Labour. It has at heart many of the matters which are the concern of the Factory Inspectorate and there is a long record of close and fruitful association between the Inspectorate and the Society.
Among the main functions of the Industrial Division, are the provision of safety training courses—not only for safety officers but for various specialised groups such as power press workers, supervisors, fork-lift truck drivers, and more generally for young persons—and the publication of advisory literature posters and other propaganda material. This is a valuable service to industry for which industry, quite reasonably in my view, pays, and should be expected to pay. There are 3,000 companies in membership of the Society and these cover over 6,000 factories and commercial establishments. The member firms pay subscriptions which vary according to their size. In addition, the Society has developed local accident prevention groups of which there are about 70 up and down the country and it promotes an annual conference.
The D.E.P. Factory Inspectorate co-operates closely over many of these activities. The Chief Inspector and other members of the Department attend the annual conference and make contributions. Our Deputy Chief Inspector is a member of the National Industrial Safety Committee which is the guiding body of the Industrial Division. The Inspectorate gives help with lectures on training courses for safety officers and others, and inspectors also take a limited part in the activities of local groups.
It would clearly be wrong to judge the contribution that my Department makes to RoSPA merely by the size of the grant we make. The various activities that I have mentioned all represent Inspectorate time and, therefore, an effective charge on the Department, and it is help which the Inspectorate is glad to give as part of its general work.
The grant which RoSPA receives from the Department has been limited to a contribution towards expenditure on the regional organisation of the Society. This regional organisation was set up five years ago, as the hon. Gentleman

probably knows, and the grant for 1970–71 amounts to 50 per cent. of the Society's expenditure with a maximum of £14,000 from the Department. I do not know if the hon. Gentleman knows, but it is a fact that the Society has a wish to become self-supporting. This was the idea right from the outset when the original agreement was made in 1965. It is a very laudable ambition that the Society has. The Department has guaranteed to help the Society over its initial period. That is what we are doing at present. The main contribution of the regional organisers is to make provision for safety training courses of a type not otherwise available. This is certainly work which we want to encourage.
No one would deny that the persistently high number of accidents in industry today is a matter for considerable concern. The hon. Gentleman referred to this as a problem of increasing intensity. While there is plenty of room for argument as to exactly what the figures mean, we all need to remind ourselves constantly that it is a problem which needs to be tackled vigorously. At the same time, we must remember that the all-in figure includes a range from fatalities, the number of which must not be under-estimated, to serious injuries causing incapacity for life, to minor bruises, scratches, strains and sprains.
The criterion for reportability, which was fixed as long ago as 1924, is three days' absence from work. As the Chief Inspector of Factories pointed out in his Report for 1967—
The three-day criterion no longer has the same meaning it had in the days of high unemployment, before the Welfare State when workers were under great pressure to return to their jobs before they were fit.
The hon. Gentleman quoted a number of interesting figures about accident totals in Britain. It is estimated that in premises which are subject to the Factories Act there are between 9 million and 12 million accidents every year. Roughly 322,000 of those, or 2½ per cent., were at the last count ones which could be described as reportable accidents because they caused disablement of the individual for more than three days. Of those 322,000, over one-half were comparatively minor.
The increase in the figures can be explained, certainly in part, by the fact that there are more short-term absences from work. Those who are affected have less to lose. There is also more conscientious reporting of accidents by employers. Accidents are more easily detected. They are more easily listed than they were even a few years ago.
Statistics are very useful, but as in so many spheres they can be misleading. The Chief Inspector of Factories, who is a reasonably impartial witness on this subject, said this in his Report for 1968:
I do not wish to repeat the arguments I put forward last year against the use of gross totals of accidents reported to the Inspectorate as an index of safety performance; changing social conditions over the years have altered the meaning of the three-day absence criterion of reportability. This is vividly illustrated by the mining industry, where the fatality rate has been reduced since 1947 by two-thirds, and the incidence rate of certain classes of serious accident by one-third: during the same period the number of accidents causing disablement for more than three days has risen by over 70 per cent.
That indicates, although it is not entirely comparable with the rest of industry, that the overall total can rise while the number of the more serious consequences of accidents can go down. Nevertheless, we are all agreed that there are too many accidents of all kinds, and a great deal of the effort of what is in reality a modern and sophisticated Factory Inspectorate is directed precisely to this problem.
I emphasise that there is no simple solution to the problem, just as there is no single or straightforward cause of accidents in any sphere of life. It is a human problem, which is complicated by technology, by modern industry and by the needs of modern life. Sometimes, it is diverse and relatively obstruse where technical problems are involved.
The striking thing is that a vast number of accidents are often caused by simple faults of carelessness. Things are left where people can fall over them or where they can fall on people. We can all be guilty in this respect. One can fence in a machine, but one cannot stop a man from spilling oil near to it so that somebody slips up. One can preach to the individual to take care, but familiarity breeds contempt and over a period he

may get away with it and ultimately, alas, suffer disastrous results when things go wrong.
In this whole problem, education is paramount. It is, therefore, extremely important that societies like RoSPA should do all they can, and the Department of Employment and Productivity should do all that it can, to educate those who work in industry, both management and employee, to take far more seriously the whole problem of safety and protection of the individual.
The day-to-day work of our inspectors in the field is supplemented and guided by the consultations which take place all the time with industry about handling of particular problems and about a realistic approach to safety matters. Joint standing committees, on which both sides of industry are represented, tackle problems in particular areas and on more general matters. There are frequent consultations, as I am sure the hon. Member knows, with the C.B.I., the T.U.C. and the nationalised industries under the aegis of the Industrial Safety Council.
One might ask what is the right approach to safety matters. We are, naturally, awaiting with great interest the report of the Committee on Safety and Health at Work under the chairmanship of Lord Robens. It was the view of the last Administration that the time had come for a thorough and wide-ranging inquiry to look at the function of legislation in this field, and I agree with the views advanced at that time. The part played by voluntary bodies and the various Government enforcement agencies certainly comes into account in this respect.
The House will be pleased to learn that the Committee has already started its work. There must, naturally, be a little time before it completes its difficult and fairly complicated assignment. It is certainly not lacking in drive and enthusiasm. I know that Lord Robens is particularly keen that he should do a good job on this project. I have no doubt that there will be very useful results from the exercise, which the Government will wish to consider closely. I expect that the rôle of such bodies as ROSPA and their relationship with Government organisations and industry


will come under scrutiny in the Committee's review, but there is no need for them to be afraid of that.
The hon. Member suggested towards the end of his speech that the Industrial Injury Fund should be called upon to make a contribution to help RoSPA I am clear that this would not be right. The disposal of the Industrial Injury Fund is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security and the purpose of the fund is to meet the future costs of disablement pensions. The question of accident prevention, however, is very much one for my Department, and I have tried in these few remarks to indicate some of the ways in which the problem is being tackled.
It is a matter for the Department and for the Factory Inspectorate, but, above all, it is a matter for industry itself, both employers and employees. I am sure that it would be wrong to regard the amount of direct Government help, even to so worth while a body as RoSPA, as being of more than marginal significance in the vital battle to cut down the number of accidents in industry.
The hon. Gentleman, even at this unearthly hour of the morning, has done a service by raising this subject, a subject on which none of us can be complacent, and he has, I am sure encouraged both RoSPA and the Department to do all we can to achieve the right type of co-operation. We are not complacent about industrial safety. We try, as, I am sure, successive Governments have tried, to be realistic in the matter. It is a most important human problem, and I hope and expect that there will be valuable progress made in the coming years.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN SPACE CONFERENCE

2.50 a.m.

Mr. Ray Carter: It is purely fortuitous that I should rise to speak on a technological matter so soon after having been involved in something of a fracas with the Ministry of Technology, and I must congratulate the Minister on being here at 10 to three on a Wednesday morning after finding it impossible to be present at 2 o'clock on a Friday afternoon.
I wish to call attention to our contribution, covered by the Bill, towards the

European Space Conference. I do so for a variety of reasons, but, in particular, because I worked for nine years in the aerospace industry and, quite apart from my political interest in the subject, I have, naturally, some technical interest in it as well. I have seen in aerospace what indecision means both to the industry and to the workpeople. On the other hand, I know in technological terms what the benefits are from playing a part in the pace-setters of the technological age.
In addition, I know to some extent the minds of scientists, the world's greatest enthusiasts. In my opinion, it is something of a tragedy that too few politicians have taken an interest in matters of science and technology. So often, in this Chamber or in other places where we discuss the political aspects of these matters, politicians enter the debate with a poorly informed approach. I believe that the principal reason for any troubles and difficulties we have had in science and technology has been our lack of grasp of the subjects as politicians. I hope that, in the coming years, Parliament will have among its Members a greater number of people who can bring rather more specialist knowledge to bear than we have shown so far.
I turn to the conference and the European space effort flowing from it. I do not wish to dwell on the past, which is riddled with failure and indecision. E.L.D.O. started out in a poor fashion and, most people would agree, has been a failure. On the other hand, E.S.R.O., which was constructed rather differently, has been a success. What we should do now, and I hope that the £50,000 which we are to contribute towards the cost of the conference which starts today will be used in this way, is to use our money and influence to ask Europe to chart a new course for its space effort.
Initially, however, I should like to look at the historical background of our space effort so far and Europe's position in science and technology. Euro-space amply illustrates the political and economic dilemma in which Europe finds itself. We do not speak with one voice. We are still a continent of nations lying behind very protective frontiers. It is extremely difficult to mount this operation in this part of the 20th century with anything like the kind of effort required to sustain the most modern forms of technology.
Europe is economically large enough to support a space effort, but it is politically divided. Until we look at the problem of Euro-space in strictly political terms and put behind us those things which divide us, Europe will never play a worth-while and lasting part in space.
Britain's rôle in this is critical. In the past, our perspective has been clouded by history, but one hopes that by 1970 at long last Britain knows its rôle in the world and is prepared to play a European rôle in this matter. More than any other nation in Europe, Britain is equipped to play a full and leading part in this aspect of technology. We have the background space projects such as Blue Streak and others, a highly sophisticated electronics industry, with good manpower, the brains, the scientific effort to be able to play a major part in any European endeavour. I like to think that the European nations are waiting for us to take the lead. If we did, I am sure that we should be surprised by the result.
Britain should now spell out Europe's dilemma and give a lead at the conference. On this point I offer my suggestions about what that advice and encouragement should be. First and foremost, at the conference we should ask the members to look at the problem in a strictly political context and ask them to commit their Governments to a European endeavour.
If I stress one thing it is that our commitment in space should be European. We must plant a bee which has sound roots, which will grow attractively, and will be of benefit not only to Europe but to the world. We should confine ourselves to peaceful efforts. Europe has a great part to play in the stability of the world and I hope that any efforts it makes in space will be limited strictly to peaceful, civil purposes. Why should Europe venture into space? I will not go into too many technical details, because I am trying to keep to a strictly political attitude.
The first, critical point is to do with communications. It is the world's fastest-growing industry. To a large extent attitudes and standards adopted today throughout the world are fashioned by the communications media. If

Europe were to be left out of this we would be saying goodbye for ever to any influence that Europe could have over two-thirds of the world which has as yet escaped the tremendous influence that the communications media can bring to bear on it. The influence is cultural, educational, scientific and a host of other things.
If we want as a culture to have any real influence in future we must ensure that Europe is represented in space communications. To opt out of space communications would be to opt for cultural and political impotence. There are other aspects of space which are of economic benefit, geophysical, meteorological, industrial. One can envisage in the years ahead computer links, data processing and so on carried out by satellite. It is not too far away. It is not science fiction any more to think in these terms. In 10 years these things will be a reality. We should concern ourselves here with the strictly political aspects of space. We should play a European rôle, limited directly to peaceful purposes and outward looking. That means we should restrict ourselves to communications and those other aspects of space I have mentioned.
Another important point is the present proposal put forward by the United States that we should participate with them in the post-Apollo programme. This would be a mistake. We should try to retain a strictly European rôle.
To go in with the United States would in the not-too-distant future reduce us to the level of sub-contractors. The economic and social benefits would be quite unknown. A commitment of this kind would be quite open-ended. Some of us think that Concorde was a mistake, but many people feel that to undertake a venture of this sort would be to walk into the unknown. One aspect of a possible link-up with the United States to which we should pay considerable attention—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, linking up with America is outside the terms of this debate. This debate concerns a European space conference.

Mr. Carter: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the space conference was to discuss the proposal that Europe should participate with America in the post-Apollo programme.
I was going to mention one of the worst aspects of involvement with the United States. To throw in our lot with the United States would be to give over, possibly for all time, our electronics and computer industries. Before long this centre of the European economy might well become just another arm of the United States economy. It could be argued that that would not be a disadvantage, but in my opinion we should not become too closely enmeshed with the United States. To do so would leave us at the mercy of the United States politically and economically.
The form of the European space effort which I would like to see adopted would be modelled on E.S.R.O., a permanent body to act in the European interest with a realistic budget but backed by political commitment. The national efforts which are at present being pursued in Europe should be subordinated and eventually dropped in favour of a European endeavour. This is a most challenging task and would do a great deal to cement European unity.
Whether or not we get into the Common Market, I believe that ventures of this sort can go a long way to provide a more united Europe, drawing its countries together through such organisations in the scientific and industrial world. I should like to see Britain go forward to the conference with clear political ideas. I am quite sure that if we go forward in that spirit the other European nations will take our lead and Europe will be able to play a worthwhile part in the space effort.

3.9 a.m.

Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: The hour is late and I shall be brief. This is the second debate on space that has taken place at an odd hour. I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) for raising this subject in such a helpful way. He is one of the new entrants to the House and is himself a technologist.
The purpose of my intervention is simple. I understand that the Minister of Technology is now in Brussels and that he and the Minister of State are there to meet with their European colleagues to discuss space problems. This is the first time for six years that Conservative

Ministers have been in Europe discussing space, and we have no idea what they intend to say.
I am bound to turn my mind back to 1964, when the previous Administration but one launched E.L.D.O. with the old Blue Streak, set up E.S.R.O., and took a rather romantic view of space which became very much embedded in European thinking at that time. The Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), has often quoted his report on possible space applications of 10 years ago and said how right he was. But he has made the speech for 10 years, and his applications have not yet materialised. The main problem of space policy in Europe, and even in the United States, was that we all thought of the hardware first. When we had it, we said, "What are the applications?" Unfortunately, they did not come with the speed that we expected.
In the last few years, there has been a substantial change in thinking initiated by the previous Government. We deliberately scaled down our E.L.D.O. contribution with a view to getting out of E.L.D.O. We laid our emphasis on applications, for the reason suggested by my hon. Friend, namely, that we thought that the market was developing in electronics, in sub-systems and in communications. We backed E.S.R.O. because it came from another budget—the science budget—and we made a formidable contribution to it.
We took a commercial view of space. It was unpopular at first in Europe, but gradually we began to win the argument with our European colleagues. They began to see that it was the industrial interest which should be dominant, and that we could pay too high a price for the independence that my hon. Friend would like. I take what he says. However, in government it is necessary to make choices. It is impossible to be independent in everything. We chose to be more independent in computers than the French were, rather than to go for the launcher independence which the French thought important, at any rate under General de Gaulle.
We also tried to get accepted the idea that European countries engaged in space should not all be compelled to take the same line. We thought that here should


be a self-selective approach: there should be launcher countries, application countries, and certain other countries which came in because they wanted to be associated with one project or another. In developing a new European space organisation, we have to be careful that there remains a self-selective element in it. Everyone cannot take the same view. There must also be natural break points as well. We agreed in that spirit to finance a European launcher arrangement to help those countries which were building the launcher.
I should like to know the new Government's policy towards European space. First, what is their attitude towards E.L.D.O.? Do they want us to go back into E.L.D.O.? Do they want us to increase our contribution to E.L.D.O.? Secondly, and without regard to British participation in E.L.D.O., what is the Government's attitude towards a European launcher? Do they think that it is necessary? Are they persuaded, as we were, that in certain conditions it might be possible to get a launcher elsewhere? Have they considered the possibility that the shuttle, if the Americans bring it in, will leave even a Europa 3 standing on the launch pad as so much junk?
Then, what about E.S.R.O.? We offered a very substantial increase on the E.S.R.O. spend. Will it be affected by public expenditure cuts? Is it under review? What view will the Government take on that when they go to Brussels?
What is the Government's attitude towards the N.A.S.A. offer? We debated it recently, and I am not asking for more than some indication of the thinking that the Minister will reveal in Brussels.
Finally, have they considered the user interest? These extraordinary capabilities require a big spend if countries are to be able to use them intelligently for their own interests. As Tom Paine is always saying, space is a new international continent just a few miles off the shores and oceans of every land.
These are very big decisions in which industry must be consulted. They are decisions which affect the allocation of qualified scientists and engineers and money. The choices have to be made. We cannot do everything. What is the choice to be between space and other types of expenditure, and on

what criteria are they to be judged? What is the choice to be between the United Kingdom's national programme—Black Arrow, which we supported—and European space, which my hon. Friend thinks should take priority? What is the balance to be between European and trans-Atlantic space projects in respect of spending?
I ask all this because I believe that what a country will look like in the future will depend more on the way that it uses its scientific manpower and the objectives that it sets itself and them than on almost any other single factor. We are talking about a big area of decision involving high skill by large numbers of people. How we use them and whether we use them wisely will, in the end, provide the criterion against which the Government's policy will have to be judged.

3.15 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. David Price): As the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) pointed out, this debate follows naturally from the one that we had on the Friday before last when the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised the question of possible British participation in the American post-Apollo programme.
This morning the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) has raised the wider subject of the European Space Conference which includes Europe's response to the N.A.S.A. post-Apollo offer. This means that we are, in effect, debating space in serial form. This is no bad thing necessarily, particularly when it brings the right hon. Member for Bristol. South-East to his feet twice in 10 days on this matter and, if I may say so, making a most helpful speech. The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I cannot answer all his questions on future policy tonight. Part of my right hon. Friend's purpose in going to Brussels is to share views, some in private and some in public, with his European colleagues. It is a period of gestation for my right hon. Friend in giving birth to a full blooded space policy. I share the right hon. Gentleman's view about the effect that the successful development of the shuttle would have on projects like Europa III.


I hoped that I indicated that the Friday before last.
Before I attempt to respond to the general arguments raised in the debate, I should like to deal with the accounting aspect of the Supplementary Estimate under review. This provides for an increase of £50,000 in expenditure under sub-head B4. This is a new sub-heading. The original estimate for 1970/71 made no provision for a direct payment to the European Space Conference. But I should add that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East will know that payments were made through the E.S.R.O. sub-head. This is a direct payment, and therefore it has been felt appropriate to have this new sub-heading.
In the debate on 10th July I said:
A preliminary study of the space tug elements of the proposals"—
that is, the N.A.S.A. proposals—
is being undertaken by the European Space Conference, and the United Kingdom's share of the cost of this study will amount to about £50,000 over the next six months or so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1970; Vol, 803, c. 1110.]
I do not wish to weary the House by repeating all that I said on the post-Apollo programme in that debate, but I will summarise the essential features.
First, the N.A.S.A. approach was to Europe collectively and called for a European response. Secondly, the appropriate European institution is the European Space Conference. Thirdly, as part of the further studies needed—I emphasise "needed"—the European Space Conference has entrusted E.L.D.O. with the task of undertaking a study programme on the space tug. Fourthly, the amount of money to be spent on this work will be about £200,000, of which our share will be about £50,000.
The preliminary study will be carried out in industry and will concentrate on the design characteristics of a space tug—that is, a space vehicle which can transfer itself and a payload from one orbit to another. The space tug is one of the possible components of the American post-Apollo programme, in which Europe has been invited to participate. These studies are intended to increase European understanding of the technical problems posed by the design of such a vehicle, but I should make it

clear that the choice of the space tug for this study does not imply that Europe intends to concentrate on this part of the post-Apollo programme alone or exclusively if it decides to join the United States in it.
I should add that the net increase to the Exchequer is not £50,000, but only £1,000. This arises because there has been a reduction of £49,000 in our contribution to E.S.R.O. Hon. Members will find this under sub-head B3 on page 26 of the Supplementary Civil Estimates. The reason for this reduction is simply stated. The long-term applied research programme of E.S.R.O. will start somewhat later than we had expected.
So much for the narrow accounting point about the Supplementary Estimate under discussion.
I turn, now, to the broader matter which the hon. Gentleman raised of the European Space Conference as a whole. As the hour is getting late I shall not fill in the background of how the European Space Conference has developed. I know that the hon. Gentleman will know about this, but I should like to respond to one point that he made when he said that we ought to concentrate all our efforts on European co-operation in space, and he envisaged the time when we would be doing nothing domestically.
I ought to put Britain's contribution to European space ventures into perspective by telling the hon. Gentleman what the present state of play is on the distribution of effort. During the last financial year we as a nation were spending rather more than £28 million on our total space activities. Of this, nearly £15 million was spent on international civil programmes, primarily in Europe, and this included about £8 million of E.L.D.O. expenditure, which under the policies we inherited is not due to be repeated. More than £5 million was for defence. The remainder was on national programmes under three main heads—space technology; scientific space research; and the Post Office's Earth Terminals for the Intelsat Communications System. As I said during our previous debate, hon. Members will find a full account of the current United Kingdom space programme in the memorandum which was submitted in January to Sub-Committee A of the Select Committee on Science and Technology.
I think that the relevance of our total space programme to the European Space Conference will be clear to the House. However enthusiastic we may be about British participation in international endeavours, and in this context we are thinking primarily of Europe, whether for technical, economic or political reasons, all of which can be compelling, in my view it must be right to maintain a balance between our domestic and our international programmes, because unless we maintain a minimum level of domestic capability I do not believe that we shall prove to be adequate international partners.
I do not think it would be appropriate tonight to enter into a discussion on what that minimum level should be. Suffice to say that the national space technology programme which we have inherited is currently of the order of about £3 million a year. This would be my major qualification of what the hon. Gentleman said about a total British commitment to European space co-operation.

Mr. Benn: May I ask the Minister whether he is saying indirectly that the Black Arrow programme is to continue with a British launcher, and this has been decided?

Mr. Price: No, I am not. I am stating what is my own approach to these matters. I think the right hon. Gentleman will be entitled to assume that until or unless other policies are announced we are continuing with what he was doing.
N.A.S.A.'s approach to Europe to take part in the post-Apollo programme, which has triggered off the need for this Supplementary Estimate, was made on a collective basis and calls for a collective European response. Like so much of space technology, in my view this is an area where single European nations cannot hope to go it alone; the costs and the expertise needed are too great. This fact is recognised in the establishment of the European Space Conference as a forum for Ministerial discussion and for co-operation.
But I put it to the House that, even on the basis of pooled resources, Europe has to be selective in its approach to potential space projects. In the West, only the United States has been able to

afford a programme covering all aspects of space technology, and now even the American programme is undergoing critical examination because of the demands it makes on national resources. Europe, the House will agree, has to choose, and to choose carefully.
There are probably three main criteria which European space Ministers will have in their minds in considering future space programmes at the conference. The first is the need to avoid investing in obsolete technology, and in a field of very rapid technical advance this is not always as easy to avoid as it sounds. The second, conflicting in some respects with the first, is the need to maintain technical expertise at a sufficient level and over a wide enough field to keep the option of moving into new areas of technology as they develop. The conflict with avoiding obsolete technology may, of course, come when the "threshold" level of expertise can be reached only by repeating work which has been done elsewhere.
The third criterion, and in many ways the most important, is the economic return offered by a project. Here the difficulty is that in any area of advanced technology detailed analysis of costs and benefits can only point the way to a decision; in the end, judgment still has to be applied to the available figures. This is especially true when the choice is between providing a commercial service by conventional means or by using a satellite system, and more so when the service involved is—like weather forecasting—hard to analyse in strictly economic benefit terms even when conventional systems are used. Nevertheless, the discipline of attempting to calculate economic return is always salutary where high costs, long time scales and advanced concepts are concerned.
This, then, is the background for this week's meeting of the European Space Conference at Brussels. As the right hon. Gentleman reminded the House, our delegation will be led by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Technology supported by my noble Friend the Minister of State. Naturally, I cannot anticipate the trend of the discussions nor would it be proper for me to indicate the precise line which my right hon. Friend will feel it is right to take on each point as it emerges.
However, we would anticipate that the major discussions will probably centre around some fairly obvious topics. It would be no great breach of confidence to indicate them to the House, as they have been extremely well aired in some British and European newspapers. The first, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in passing, is the institutional question—namely, the integration of E.S.R.O. and E.L.D.O.
The second is the response to N.A.S.A.'s offer of participation on the post-Apollo programme.
Thirdly, there are the studies about application satellites, which are likely to be in three main areas: a telecommunications programme; an aeronautical programme; and a meteorological programme.
Fourthly, there is the continuing theme of scientific programmes.
Fifthly, there is the future of European launchers.
Whether all these topics will be discussed in depth I cannot say, but they are clearly the major topics with which the European Ministers are likely to be concerned.
In our debate on 10th July the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East pointed out the danger of individual Governments trying to make decisions before the meetings of European Ministers. He said:
One of the great reasons for the failure of these discussions in the past was that the Cabinets commit their representatives before they go and the result is that there is no flexibility in discussion".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1107.]
Those were very wise words. It is because I know that the House would wish my right hon. Friend to have just that flexibility in his discussions this week at Brussels that it would be counterproductive for me to attempt to pre-empt these discussions, and those who know me well will realise that this involves a high degree of restraint on my part.

Orders of the Day — NIGERIA

3.31 a.m.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I very much appreciate the Minister's coming to the House to answer the debate at this late hour. It is a debate on a matter of very great importance, and it was because we felt that the Consolidated Fund Bill provided the only opportunity to raise this matter before Parliament broke up for a very long recess—and human beings have a way of not being able to wait, sometimes, for relief—that we felt obliged to put the Minister to this extreme inconvenience. I apologise to him, but there was no other opportunity.
I begin by saying that the facts as I know them in the present situation in the Eastern Region of Nigeria are that the Rehabilitation Commission took over from the Nigerian Red Cross on 30th June of this year; it has been established that the major relief agencies, and particularly the three that have borne the greatest part of the day-to-day field work in relief, have decided to continue their work, and that the Nigerian Government have agreed to this, at least until 30th September. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that.
I also understand that it is estimated that between 1 million and 3 million people are still dependent upon emergency relief feeding by the relief organisations to which I have referred. I also understand that food is available in the East Central Region and that the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund has supplied no less than 11,000 tons of protein in the last few weeks and that money is available because the Federal Government have provided about £10 million to the East Central Region Government and that there is still an outstanding sum from the original grant of about £5 million by the United Kingdom Government for the relief of the Eastern Region. I understand that nearly £3 million is still outstanding, but I ask the Minister whether he can confirm that that is so.
What leads us to raise this matter is the report that there is still considerable malnutrition in the Eastern Region. I want to raise what seems to have been the bane of the entire Nigerian tragedy—and one of the things that have made it


most difficult—for people to Know how best to help, namely, the extremely conflicting reports still coming from the Eastern and East Central Regions. I want to detain the House for a few moments by mentioning some of the reports that are in contradiction one to the other, and to ask the Minister whether he has any additional information about the situation to which this substantial Supplementary Estimate in the Consolidated Fund is being directed in the form of emergency relief.
It is not unknown to hon. Members that at the time the civil war was still raging there were constant conflicting reports on the question whether it was the policy of the Federal Government to pursue the genocide of the Ibo people—a view that my right hon. Friend and I never shared—or whether this was, as it later proved to be, a mere wild rumour, and one for which there was no justification.
On 13th July, in the television programme, "Panorama", the interviewer said:
Many Ibos have surrendered their useless Biafran currency—they have surrendered it, but General Gowon has refused to exchange it for Nigerian money.
This conflicts with a report which appeared in West Africa, the expert magazine on that part of Africa, on 18th July:
Four million pounds was paid in compensation to currency holders and £10 million in funds were made available to the Enugu Government in addition to normal funds.
Again, in "Panorama" on 13th July, we were told:
They"—
that is, the Government officials—
have received unwritten instructions to slow down completely on aid to the Ibos.
Yet we know that all the senior officials and commissioners of the East Central Region are themselves Ibos.
This also conflicted with a television programme only four days later, in which the relief co-ordinator in Owerri was quoted as saying:
The amount of food available to the people has increased.
So it is very difficult to discover or decide exactly where the truth lies.
I have one final quotation. This is perhaps in some ways the strangest

conflict of all. In that same "Panorama" programme on 30th July, the interviewer said:
The assessment of all the relief workers I have talked to is this: 'The starvation today in some parts of former Biafra is as bad today as it was during the war.' Yet only a few days ago, the Secretary-General of the Red Cross Societies, Dr. Hendrik Beer, said, 'No more people are dying of hunger in the eastern part of Nigeria. The situation is now normal by African standards, where under-nourishment is typical'.
From all this, I draw certain conclusions which I want to put on record. The first, which is clearly strongly based on such reports as we have, authenticated from many sources, is that General Gowon has approached the question of the aftermath of war in a spirit as magnanimous and generous as any Government has ever shown—certainly more so than has been shown in any civil war, including some that all of us still remember.
Second, his intentions—this is familiar to any Government—have not always been carried out in full in every detail in the field by all his subordinates. Anyone familiar with the difficulties of communications in Nigeria, which are not improved by the aftermath of war, may know how difficult it may sometimes be for people in the field even to know precisely what those instructions are.
Third, it is undoubtedly true that there is, as there always has been in this particularly over-populated part of Nigeria, a lean period before the harvest. I suspect that because many people no longer have the reserve of strength they would have had in normal circumstances because of the civil war, there are some who are badly under-nourished and some who may even be dying because they cannot last out until the harvest. But this again is a re-emphasising of the constant situation of malnutrition in many parts of Africa.
The rise in the number of kwashioker cases is very serious, particularly in certain areas. Is it the Minister's view that these areas include Owerri, Awka and the areas around Mbaise? It is also worth putting on record the fact that the commissioners of the Eastern Region themselves have been very precise about their needs and have never tried to hide the real situation. The Commissioner of Health and Social Welfare, Flora Nwakuche, only two weeks ago made it


clear that there was a need for more food urgently for the affected areas.
I suspect that two new and quite serious crises are arising in this area. They are concerned not so much with the immediate crisis of food supplies—I have explained that there is still a serious need in certain areas for food—but with the massive need for jobs. This, I suspect, is not unrelated to hardship because the East Central Region took on its payroll shortly after the civil war ended many thousands of people whom it could not possibly sustain in employment.
In an effort to help those who had been dispossessed by the war, they were taken into the civil service, but they cannot be employed on a permanent basis in view of the highly inflated situation of the public employment arrangements. This serious unemployment problem may to some extent be eased by the movement of some of the Ibos back to the regions where, in the past, they have been singularly successful in being of help.
Another problem which is emerging is the large number of schools left in a pitiful state through the war. I understand that more than 1,100 primary schools are in a serious state of bad repair and that, as a result, the educational programme of what is, after all, one of the best educated areas of Nigeria has been brought to a halt because of the absence of educational materials, books and so on, as well as building materials to repair the schools.
I wish to be brief to enable my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), who is an expert on this subject, to speak. There are a few direct questions which I hope the Minister will answer. I ask them fully recognising that this is a situation which concerns a sovereign and independent country and a country which it is high time we in Britain recognised is free to conduct matters in its own way.
Have we offered immediately relevant help in the last few weeks—help with, for example, educational equipment, schoolbuilding prefabricating sections and seed, though I recognise that much of the seed that we have available is not relevant in this case? And what about spares for the commercial lorries, many of which are Bedford vans? I understand that

many of these vehicles are laid up because spares have not reached them. This has, I gather, had a serious effect on the fleets of relief vans in these parts of Nigeria.
How much of the original £5 million contributed by Her Majesty's Government has been spent? Is it true that the majority of this sum is still unspent? What information does the Minister have about there being adequate supplies of protein-rich emergency food there? Does the problem of distribution—I have referred to the need for lorry spares—arise as a result of inadequate roads and bridges? If so, can we do anything to help?
Are the Government generally and the Department in particular considering how best to respond to the recent appeal for a £500 million loan which Nigeria is seeking from friendly countries with a view to starting the major task of reconstruction and rehabilitation throughout the country?
I repeat that, in my view, the intention is there to correct the situation. However, it is not helped by putting a particularly unhappy interpretation on what has been done. It is the responsibility of Britain—of the Government and the Oppposition—to do everything possible to relieve the serious need which inevitably follows one of the grimmest civil wars of this century.

3.45 a.m.

Mr. James Johnson: After listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), I think that the House and the Government are in her debt for initiating the debate. It could not have come at a more opportune time for Nigeria. I have just received a letter from an old Nigerian public servant, in which he talks about
a new wave of propaganda which is being mounted in some quarters to belittle what the Federal Government have done to date in solving the problems of relief.
I applaud the decision of the former Government on, I think, 19th January to make further assistance available in the sadly war-torn eastern part of Nigeria, and I compliment the Minister and his Government on implementing the pledges given then.
The Vote is under two heads. The first is direct expenditure on rehabilitation. Perhaps the Minister would tell us in a


little more detail whether this means providing vehicles or perhaps maize seedlings and things like that for the farmers. The other consists of the larger sum of grants for the voluntary agencies, such as the Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria and St. John Ambulance Brigade.
I join my hon. Friend in asking the Minister to confirm the conditions east of the Niger. We must look at the situation in which the taxpayer's money is being spent. We are a little disturbed about it, and we are disturbed by both the "Panorama" programme on B.B.C. television and a recent edition of the Evening Standard, which seemed to mislead hon. Members and the public. If not mischievous, they appeared to me to be somewhat mendacious. There was a suggestion that malnutrition was on the increase in the East Central State, which is Ibo land by and large, whereas a young voluntary worker who had just left denied this. He said that things were much better than they had been.
I have taken some pains to check this, both with the High Commission here and with some old friends, Nigerians from the Mid-West, Ibos from Benin city and others who are now in London, and they say that malnutrition is not on the increase.
The debate will have served a purpose if the Minister tells us what conditions are like there, and whether they are worsening, which I do not accept, or getting better, which I very much hope to be the case. This part of Nigeria has always been a food-importing area. The yams were brought from Ugogi and the meat from the north. Therefore, it has always been in difficulties. A great deal of money was sent back by expatriates working elsewhere. In addition, there was the dislocation of the civil war, and not all the farmers have yet returned.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that things are getting better, and that as a result of the goods sent out under the Vote they will get much better still. The first harvest should be in by now. The war finished towards the end of January, so vegetables should be in now—tomatoes and the like, and other foods with a protein value, though I accept that cassavas and yams will not be with the Ibos and other tribes until October or November, after the heavy rains.
I am told, and I hope that the Minister will confirm this, that the old civil servants, basically Ibos who fought in the war, are now being absorbed. I hope that he will also confirm that the Administration, which of course will plan how to spend these moneys, is all Ibo under Mr. Tony Asika, of Enugu. The Ibo are being administered by their kinsmen and we hope that they are getting back to their old life and that Federal public servants are coming back. The people who will be administering these funds will know what is wanted and that they are not outsiders from Lagos and elsewhere.
I hope that the Minister will say that qualified Ibo engineers and medicals, for whom there are no jobs at the moment are helping to make conditions better and that when they go to work they will be able to send part of their wages to the north and other parts of Nigeria. I understand that £250,000 is being given in grants to voluntary organisations assisting in relief work.
The decision was taken as far back as August last year that the International Red Cross should hand over and the decision was taken on 1st July this year that the Nigerian Red Cross should hand over to the local machinery. Now we find that the local machine, plus I believe six voluntary agencies, will administer relief work in this sorely stricken territory. I understand that these are the Nigerian Council of Churches, the Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria, U.N.I.C.E.F., the Save the Children Fund, the Christian Council of Nigeria and the World Food Programme. This gives the lie to many statements in newspapers in the United Kingdom that we do not know what is happening, and that the money is administered by Federal servants, much of it filtered away and lost in the capital. I hope that the Minister will give an indication of the good work done in the field for 2 million or more people in difficulty in the centre.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman particularly to say something about the need for teachers and what is happening and will happen in the restoration of schools. I was for some time in Calabar at the famous school of the Church of Scotland, Hope Waddell College. It had 800 students. The Ibo soldiery occupied it and looted it. They tore up the floorboards to make fires. Outside help is


needed in this situation. One hopes that soon our efforts will change the situation and that once more there will be 800 students following their studies in Calabar, which is almost an Athens in this respect. I hope it does not sound presumptuous to ask that there should be consultation with the High Commissioner and the Educational Council at Nigeria House about these matters. There is a big need for land vehicles, I am told, particularly land rovers.
To summarise, I again ask the Minister to confirm that all the activity and all the administration at Enugu and in the State is by Ibos. It is very important that it be understood that the Ibos are now looking after their own State from top to bottom. They have the same powers as all other States, whether it is the Western or North Eastern Region, or Kano or elsewhere.
Will the Minister confirm that the Ibos are given money to use at their discretion? There have been comments that some of the help sent has lain in Lagos and that Lagos is inefficient. Now it is not the case. The stuff goes to Enugu. It is there to be spent at the discretion of the Ibos.
I again emphasise that the voluntary agencies act of their own volition. They are not hampered, as some people have alleged, by federal or any other civil servants.
There is a need for school equipment and agricultural implements. Perhaps not all that is sent leaves Enugu and reaches the villages. Perhaps all of the £2,000 worth of screws and nails which was sent by the Americans recently did not filter through for school rehabilitation and the like. There is no one present tonight who would not say that there is obviously incompetence, and even some indifference. After all, this is Africa. To deny this would be to say that the Ibos were perfect. In our recent debates some have sought to give the impression that the Ibos are almost the quintessence of all the virtues. They are very good but, like the English, they can make some mistakes.
Another canard that the Minister might attempt to dispel is that no one gets into Nigeria to see how our money is being spent and how the agencies are administering it. I believe this to be an absolute lie. Reuters are in there. The

magazine West Africa, earlier quoted, is there, with an eminent editor, David Williams. French journalists go in. I believe that we should see an end to this myth that aid sent by us or by anyone else is not reaching its intended destination and that we do not know what is happening.
The Federal Army has done a wonderful job with Bailey bridges and the like. Curiously enough, I place two other needs almost as high in my list of priorities as food and education. It is very important that law and order should be maintained. The Ibo Army did not hand in all its arms. There is banditry east of Owerri which places enormous difficulties in the way of the voluntary organisations. Lastly, there is the need for jobs. Without jobs, these people will always be the supplicants of outside agencies.
I quote from the Evening Standard, of all papers:
The British are intimately involved. The public wants to know that the money now spent upon relief is being well spent. So far the new Tory Administration has remained silent on the issue. Here is an area which demands sympathy, attention and positive action.

3.59 a.m.

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): I assure the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) that she need have made no apology for raising this matter even at a rather late hour, because she has drawn our attention to a matter of very great importance about which many people feel strongly.
I will say something about the background against which our assistance is given. The hon. Lady recognises, as I know the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) does, that Nigeria is a sovereign and independent member of the Commonwealth. This by no means precludes discussions with the Nigerian Government before official requests are made to us as to the best means of using our aid. It means, however, that the aid which we eventually give must accord with the wishes of the Nigerian Federal Government.
Secondly, the hon. Lady rightly drew attention to the magnanimity, which, I think, most of us admire, shown by


General Gowon since the end of the war, but we should all agree that the task faced by the country is formidable Thank goodness, the war is over, but all wars leave scars, and after civil wars they are generally deeper.
The Nigerians are engaged in a massive constitutional reorganisation, having decided to replace the former structure of four regions by a federation of 12 States. This major reform is being tackled at the same time as the reconstruction of the Nigerian economy and the repair of the damage which was caused by the civil war.
The House will realise that since the civil war, as we always expected would be the case, there have been immense difficulties, with a part of the country left with no form of civil administration, the new administration had to be improvised and built literally from nothing at all levels.
The hon. Lady has drawn our attention to the fact that this time of year is normally known as the hungry season in Nigeria and other parts of West Africa, and between harvests food resources are low. Even before the civil war, the protein deficiency and malnutrition which accompanied the hungry season affected, unhappily, the rural population in Eastern Nigeria and especially what is now the East Central State.
Having spoken of the background, I should like to talk for a moment about the three Rs—relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction. The sense in which I use these terms is, first, relief, meaning all immediate measures to relieve human suffering; rehabilitation, the longer-term measures to restore normality to people's lives; and reconstruction, the replacement of damaged or worn physical assets.
Looking back, during the financial year 1968–69, almost £1 million £970,000—was spent on relief. Early in 1969, the then Government considered the need for reconstruction when the war ended. They offered a grant of £100,000 and later followed this with an offer of an interest-free loan of £1 million. Between April, 1969, and the cease-fire, another £¼ million was given to the International Committee of the Red Cross; £¼ million was spent on relief, largely

in support of the work of the Save the Children Fund, whose field teams were helping Nigerian authorities; and other money was also spent on relief.
The hon. Lady asked me about the £5 million. This was provided, as she well knows, by the late Government when the war ended last January for relief and rehabilitation. Up to the end of March, about £1·8 million of this had been spent and, therefore, the balance then remaining was just over £3 million.
During recent weeks, my colleagues on this side of the House and I have had certain criticisms to make of the administration of the late Government, but I have nothing but admiration for the massive airlift organised by a number of Departments and by the Crown Agents. That airlift enabled us to meet the pressing requests for assistance which the Nigerian authorities made to Britain. Substantial grants were also made to the International Red Cross, the League of Red Cross Societies and to U.N.I.C.E.F.
Both the hon. Lady and her hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West asked about schools and educational equipment generally. By agreement with the Nigerian Government, £125,000 has been given in educational material to the war-affected States. Also, U.N.I.C.E.F. is itself mounting a substantial programme, to which the Government have contributed through their grant of £¼ million to U.N.I.C.E.F.
Up to last April, as the hon. Lady knows, Departmental responsibility for relief measures rested with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, although the funds which it administered were found within the aid ceiling. After that, responsibility was transferred to my Department, which was already responsible for aid for rehabilitation and reconstruction.
Now, the question of the £5 million. I expect that the whole of the balance of the £5 million to which I have referred will be disbursed during the current financial year. My Department will continue to support the British voluntary societies, which are playing a magnificent part in the relief operation, particularly in East Central State. The hon. Lady asked how long they would remain. My own opinion is that they will probably be required to remain after 30th September. If this be so, and if we are asked


to continue to support them, we shall certainly continue to do so after that date.
As well as helping to distribute food and medical supplies, the Save the Children Fund teams have taken part in a significant seed planting programme under which the Fund has provided quantities of seedling yams to farmers. There has also been a certain amount of rice planted under this programme, and the Americans have sponsored a successful programme of maize planting. With the agreement of the Nigerian authorities, the Save the Children Fund is about to undertake a further programme of seed planting, with the emphasis on vegetables rich in protein.
We all join in paying tribute to the magnificent work of the British voluntary societies engaged in relief work in Nigeria, and, indeed, to each individual member of the teams in this work of mercy, often carried out in conditions of considerable hardship. The societies have established cordial relations with their Nigerian colleagues, and their help has obviously been appreciated. This, in a sense, is the best tribute of all.
Until the end of last year, the whole relief effort in Nigeria was co-ordinated by the International Red Cross. Then the Nigerian Red Cross assumed responsibility and took over the direction of the voluntary societies engaged in relief. Yet again, on 30th June the Nigerian Red Cross relinquished its co-ordinating rôle and handed over its remaining stocks of food an dequipment to the voluntary society teams in the field.
The hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman spoke about the present administration in the East Central State. This, as both hon. Members rightly said, is a State predominantly inhabited by Ibos, and it now has an Ibo administration responsible for bringing relief to the Ibo people.
I can sum up the pattern of the relief operation in this way. During the war, responsibility was assumed by the International Red Cross. As soon as it became possible, the Federal Government transferred that responsibility, as was right and proper, to the Nigerian Red Cross, which, under the presidency of the Chief Justice, has discharged a massive task both efficiently and with great understanding. Now that the immediate crises

is thought to be over, relief will be the responsibility of the States concerned and will remain part of their normal responsibility for as long as it continues necessary.
Meanwhile, the work on rehabilitation has also been going ahead. After consultation with the Nigerian authorities, we have undertaken to supply a wide variety of goods and equipment needed by the people and by the administrations in Eastern Nigeria. This equipment is of many kinds—a great many more vehicles and spares, mobile telephone exchanges, ambulances, water pumps, equipment for schools, fishing equipment, and so on.
We have been consulting the Nigerian authorities about reconstruction. The value of the reconstruction loan has been increased to £1·55 million, and £1 million of this was spent by the end of the last financial year. Again, there is a wide variety of goods which have been or will be supplied under this loan. We have now offered £1·85 million in additional reconstruction aid which will be used by both the Federal Government Departments and the State authorities.
The hon. Lady mentioned particularly the subject of jobs, and the hon. Member emphasised the need for schools equipment, which I have mentioned. The hon. Lady also spoke of the need for rebuilding roads and bridges. I am told that roads and bridges are not a serious problem. We have already contributed from the 1969 loan bridging material and cement.
I assure the hon. Lady that I share her view that the provision of jobs is of immense importance, but, as she knows, the Federal Government has been preparing a four-year development and reconstruction plan which is likely to be published this year. As soon as we know the longer-term requirements of reconstruction, I shall be able to consider how far British aid can contribute to it in Nigeria.
The aid which I have mentioned has all been additional to our normal aid programme. Some of it has been concerned with commitments undertaken before the civil war began. This country was the one major donor which continued its aid programme throughout the war and was ready to take on new commitments before the fighting stopped.
Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member drew my attention to the general situation which now exists and asked whether there had been any deterioration. In our view, based on regular reports from the High Commission in Nigeria, there has not been any general deterioration in the situation. I have been disturbed, as has the hon. Lady, by recent reports, particularly the reports in the Evening Standard. But it is significant that the worsening figures in the Evening Standard relate to the week ending 12th June, when it is said that out-patients in the clinic at Owerri rose from 12,000 to 41,000. It is significant because the corresponding figure for the following week is 23,370. Similarly, the number of malnutrition cases at Awka hospital is reported to have risen to 588, and the corresponding figure for the following week is 196.
I do not know whether there is a printing error of some kind, but there seems to be some doubt cast by the most recent figures which I have been able to receive. However, whether these figures are for malnutrition or anything else, they should be judged against what the hon. Lady recognised as the background of the hungry season. In fact, there are many fewer people now under treatment for malnutrition since the end of the war. The number of new cases of malnutrition has also fallen each week, although there have been these fluctuations, whatever the reason for them in recent weeks. But the Nigerian authorities know about this and action has been taken to deal with it. Substantial quantities of food are available to the State Rehabilitation Commission, and projects under the World Food Programme are getting under way with the object of feeding most of 1 million people.
The position is, as always in this situation, that distribution and organisation are the main problems and that there is very little margin for any serious error. As the hon. Lady says, like all wars, the war in Nigeria has diminished the physical reserve of many people. If supplies were interrupted the effects could soon be serious. The danger should soon be greatly reduced when the main bulk of the harvest is gathered in September. For some time to come special help will

have to be given to increasing the amount of food being grown in the area and in so far as we are asked to help we shall certainly do so.
The hon. Lady mentioned currency. It is true that a shortage of currency, especially in the East Central State, puts a brake on economic revival. The Nigerian Government has announced that £N20 will be paid to everyone who banks "rebel", or demonetised Nigerian currency before a certain date and this should bring into circulation £N4 million. Moreover, the Federal Government have announced that an additional amount of £N10 million will be made available to the East Central Government towards the cost of community development schemes.
I apologise for the length of my reply, but the situation in Nigeria now that the fighting is over is one which gives rise to concern among many of our fellow countrymen and I hope that the hon. Lady and the House generally will forgive me if, for this reason, I have gone into considerable detail to answer the questions raised.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES

4.16 a.m.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Despite the unearthliness of the hour I am grateful to have this opportunity to examine the proposed £30 million increase in non-contributory benefits. We welcome any increase in benefit which will substantially improve the standard of living of that growing section of our community which finds itself, for reasons largely beyond its control, depending on fixed incomes, basically State-financed. There are two clear yardsticks by which we must judge this or any other measure of this kind.
The first criterion is this: is the increase sufficient relative to other indices marking the improved standard of living of other sections of the community? In other words, is this merely a ritual increase, a symbolic genuflection to what has become established as an annual convention and one that makes little or no impact, taking into account price and wage rises, on the relative standing of the poor or does it make a significant contribution towards reversing or at least towards


assisting the chronic deprivation and secular inequality of the major groups in poverty in Britain today?
The second criterion which must be applied is this: what ramifications will this increase have on other benefits, bearing in mind the constraints which our economic system inevitably imposes on any framework of welfare benefits and, therefore, the necessity to maintain certain balances? My immediate concern is with the adequacy of this increase, and the appropriate comparison is surely with the index of average weekly earnings of adult manual workers in industry covered by the Department of Employment and Productivity six-monthly inquiries. I readily admit that this is not an ideal basis for comparison since the index omits the entire salaried sector female workers, who now constitute a third of the work force, and, above all, it excludes any assessment of the growth of capital and fringe benefits, the recent development of which has been phenomenal.
For these reasons, comparison with the D.E.P. wage scale will tend to understate the financial deprivation of the poor in relation to the wider community. Beggars cannot be choosers, and until the Government produce an index of the growth of personal incomes with more accurately and more universally assesses net accretions in individual economic power, we shall have to rest content with existing inadequate measures.
On this basis the statistics plot the rise in National Assistance or supplementary benefits in the past by revealing that in the 13 Tory years they increased by 110 per cent., rather less than the 118 per cent. increase in average weekly earnings in that period. In Labour's five years, however, wages rose by 38 per cent. while supplementary benefits rose by 48 per cent., a real gain for those dependent on State benefits of 10 per cent. in Labour's five years, as opposed to a real loss of 8 per cent. in the 13 Tory years—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, we are discussing single increases. We are not discussing the whole history of the supplementary benefits. We are discussing some £30 million of increase which come into force on 2nd November, 1970. The debate must not go too wide.

Mr. Meacher: I was trying to set the background in order to see the significance

of the present rise. In the light of these figures, and since the present Administration is starting from scratch, I would ask the Under-Secretary of State whether he feels that the present proposed increase is sufficient. The question is particularly relevant when one recalls the ardour, even the virulence, with which hon. Gentlemen opposite drew attention to price and wage inflation before the election.
Before the hon. Gentleman replies, I should like him to bear closely in mind his own strictures when this matter was previously debated on 15th May. On that occasion he claimed:
… if prices go on rising at the present rate a married couple will be 12s. worse off by the coming November. Is he asking the House to accept that position is satisfactory?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1970; Vol. 801, c. 1668.]
Now that the hon. Gentleman has power to upgrade the benefit rates, and since, clearly, no major diminution in the price spiral will be achieved before November, is he asking the House to accept that position as satisfactory?
The hon. Gentleman also made one other comment which is worth recalling now when he asked what would be the effect of the supplementary benefit increase on the wage-stopped, particularly the disabled. After all, there would be no use in raising benefits if disability severely inhibits earning power and the wage stop then prohibits enjoyment of the increase in benefit. Therefore, what changes in the regulations does the Minister now propose to ensure that the disabled are not excluded from the current rise?
It is possible that the Minister, rather than drawing his conclusion for the last six-year period from the figures already quoted, which were deduced from the October, 1964, base-line would prefer to justify his action now in relation to the last increase in benefits by a Tory Government. If May, 1963, is adopted as the base-line instead, it will be seen that by October 1969, the latest date for which the D.E.P. has the figures, wages had increased by 54 per cent., while National Insurance benefits had been increased by only 48 per cent. and supplementary benefits by 50–51 per cent.
I repeat my original question. In the light of the leeway to be made up by supplementary beneficiaries, and in view of


the acclaimed acceleration of price inflation, which continues unabated, does the hon. Gentleman regard the proposed increase as sufficient even to restore the relative position of supplementary beneficiaries as at seven years ago, let alone significantly to improve it? After November, of course, the position will deteriorate more and the benefit gap will grow still wider.
Moreover, this supplementary benefit deficit will be exacerbated still more if the firm commitment, first established under the previous Government, to make regular annual increases in benefit is relaxed and convention reverts to the policy previously followed under the previous Tory Administration whereby there was often a gap of 20 to 25 months between successive increases in supplementary benefits.
I turn now to the other criterion to be applied in assessing this proposed increase. I refer to its impact on other areas of the welfare network. One can say at once that, because no corresponding increase in National Insurance benefit is included in the Estimates, this group of beneficiaries is bound to suffer a relative decline in living standards. More significantly, any increase in supplementary benefits must tend to diminish the incentive to return to work of any lower-paid man with several children who is ill or unemployed.
If the total allowances paid for the children of an unemployed or sick man are increased until they are higher than the family allowances paid when he is in work, there is an obvious danger that he will get more from his total benefit when ill or unemployed than he can earn on full wages, so that a wage stop which penalises his wife and dependants has to be imposed.
It is because family allowances have not been raised parallel to each successive increase in supplementary benefits that recourse has been had to the unsavoury alternative of an increased establishment of special investigators. Yet there is every justification, in terms of the advance made by other types of benefit, for a substantial increase in family allowances to be made, as has been explicitly promised by the Government in their Election Manifesto.
In 1946 the allowances for a family with three children represented about 8 per cent. of average industrial earnings—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can mention these matters when we are considering the impact of the increase that we are discussing tonight. But he can only mention them. He cannot debate them.

Mr. Meacher: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Speaker.
Merely in terms of keeping step with other rising standards, especially with family allowances, in order to preserve intact the delicate balance in the pattern of incentive, this increase in supplementary benefits should not be made without a definite commitment to raise family allowances in tandem.
While the last Government increased family allowances by 10s. per child—and this has a definite bearing on the present increase—they also increased supplementary benefits by more than this for all children over 10 years of age and by 16s. for children aged between 13 and 15. On top of that, it is now proposed to raise supplementary benefits for children by amounts ranging up to a further 6s. for a dependent child of 21 or more. The net result of all these changes is to tilt the balance decisively for the sick or unemployed man in the direction of financial discouragement to return to work, and this general trend is only accentuated by the failure to pay family allowances for the first child. Extension of these allowances to the first child—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is doing what I asked him not to do. We are discussing a—30 million increase in this Supplementary Estimate for supplementary pensions and allowances. There is no provision for family allowances for the first child. I said that the hon. Gentleman might refer to these matters. He cannot debate them.

Mr. Meacher: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to make it clear that any significant increase in supplementary benefits—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, I know the keenness of the hon. Gentleman on the whole topic. But we must find


some other opportunity for discussing so many of the matters that he has at heart.

Mr. Meacher: I submit that for the sheer purpose of retaining and strengthening incentives for the lower-paid worker, of which so much is rightly made, as well as for other compelling reasons, this increase in supplementary benefits should not and must not be made without a clear parallel pledge to raise family allowances in line.
The combination of the two criteria adopted here implies a commitment to the poor far outstripping the very modest proposals presented in the Bill. If supplementary beneficiaries are not relatively to fall further behind the rising living standards of the average industrial worker, let alone in relation to more ambitious indices of growing wealth, supplementary benefit rates will need much larger uplifts than are offered here. If these were granted, the necessary accompanying increase in the family allowances must be all the larger. The first is simply and straightforwardly a matter of real commitment to the poor. The second follows by virtue of the inexorable logic of the welfare system. Yet I submit that it will be these early decisions of this new Administration which will constitute the litmus paper of their resolve in this crucial central sphere of social policy.

4.30 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on being able to get a good deal of substance into this comparatively narrow debate. I shall try to follow your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and keep within order in trying to reply to the interesting points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
It may be helpful if I deal, first, with the Supplementary Estimate of £30 million which is involved. The whole of this sum is needed to meet the cost in 1969–70 of the uprating in supplementary benefit which was approved by the last Parliament, with all-party support, and is due to take effect in November.
In a full year the cost will be £70 million. All expenditure on supplementary benefit is met from money voted by Parliament, and the full cost of any increase not announced at the time of

the Annual Estimate is presented to Parliament and has to be covered in a Supplementary Estimate.
About four-fifths of the extra cost will be absorbed by the increase in the principal scale rates. In a full year the 8s. increase for the single householder will cost over £37 million, whilst the 13s. increase for married couples will cost over £21 million. The remaining sum covers the extra provision for non-householders and for dependent children of claimants.
The Estimate for supplementary benefit this year was £485 million, so that, with the Supplementary Estimate, expenditure is now expected to total £515 million.
The increase in benefit will help nearly all those now receiving supplementary benefit, and also some people who, because of the increased scale rates, will become entitled to a supplementary pension or supplementary allowance.
The hon. Gentleman raised two main questions. The first concerned whether the increase is sufficient in the light of price increases and likely price increases. He was kind enough to quote remarks that I made from the Opposition Front Bench in the last Parliament when the regulations were debated.
The 8s. increase in the single householder rate to £5 4s. gives an increase of about 8·3 per cent. and the rises in other rates are of broadly similar proportions.
The scale rates were last increased in November, 1969, so that there will be a full 12 months before they are increased again. Up to mid-June the Index of Retail Prices, excluding housing, had gone up by 4·6 per cent. It was the estimate up to that time on which I based my figures in the debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred. This would require an increase of 4s. 5d. to restore the value of the November, 1969, scale rates. If this trend were to continue until November, an increase of 8s. 6d. to £5 4s. 6d. would be needed to restore the 1969 value.
However, it is not possible to forecast exactly in this way what movements will take place in the Index of Retail Prices, because this depends in part on such factors as seasonal and climatic fluctuations as well as the effects of rising prices here and overseas. In practice, prices


have risen more rapidly in recent years over the period November—April than over the year as a whole. If the average trend for the previous two years, November to November, were applied, an increase of only 5s. 7d. to £5 1s. 7d. would be needed to restore the 1969 position. The rise in prices this year has not followed exactly the 1969 pattern, in that the increases in mid-May and mid-June taken together were greater than in the comparable months in 1969. Nonetheless, it is reasonable to assume that the rise in prices from November 1969 to November 1970 will be less than a simple projection of the trend so far would indicate, and that the increase of 8s. will at least cover price increases.
I turn now to the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the incentive or disincentive effect, and, in particular, to the points that he made about the wage-stop. The wage stop depends, of course, on earning capacity, and, therefore, as earnings rise, so the earning capacity of the wage-stop families tend to rise, too. The disabled cases have been reviewed carefully to see whether the wage-stop could be removed, and in a number of cases—nearly 500 of them—this has been done. It has been possible to help with some of the problems with which the hon. Gentleman is clearly familiar concerning the wage-stop cases.
I do not think that it would be in order for me to develop the point about general measures to relieve poverty, but I conclude by saying that the Government are very conscious that there are areas of poverty which cannot be dealt with fully through the supplementary benefit increases which are due to come into operation in November. We feel, however, that this will be of substantial help to many of the poorer families. They should at least restore the value of the benefits and, one hopes, also give a real increase in them. We fully recognise that there are other aspects of family poverty; for example, the one-parent families, which a committee is considering at the present time. That is one obvious example, and it was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, and we shall in due course be bringing forward proposals when our studies of these matters have been completed.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (BRUCELLOSIS)

4.37 a.m.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: May I express my gratitude to the Minister for his readines to answer this debate, especially as it has been raised by a maiden speaker. Before turning to the subject of the debate, which is brucellosis eradication, I should like to thank hon. Members in anticipation of their usual indulgence which I am sure they will extend to a maiden speaker even at this early hour of the morning.
I was born and bred in Foelgastell in the heart of the constituency, and it is a long time since Carmarthen people sent to this House one who was born amongst them and hewn from the rock of the people whom I now represent. I owe the constituency a great deal, and, in return, I hope that in this House I shall be able to serve the good people of Carmarthen and guard all that is best in the life of the constituency.
My constituency is part of a county that has a memorable history. It has been the home of great historic and legendary figures, from the days of Merlin, Bishop Ferrar, an early Protestant martyr, to Gruffydd Jones, who began what turned out to be the beginnings of the modern educational movement in Wales. It is the county of great hymn writers, the greatest of them all being Williams Pantycelln. It nurtured those nocturnal militants, the daughters of Rebecca, who challenged the tyranny of the turnpike trusts. Here also Dylan Thomas lived and worked, and who would dare leave out that great fighter and gentleman, Jim Griffiths?
Carmarthen is a constituency which epitomises the life of Wales—strong in its upholding of the culture, tradition and way of life of the Principality. In it one will find people imbued with the radical tradition, warm in their welcome to strangers, but determined to combat injustice and oppression.
Coming to the Mother of Parliaments, I think of the distinguished Members who have represented Carmarthen in the House—Lady Megan Lloyd George, remembered with affection in Carmarthen; Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris, a learned and able Deputy Speaker of the House; Moelwyn Hughes, a distinguished lawyer;


and Daniel Hopkin, who is still spoken of in the constituency as a great pioneer. These people carried the radical tradition of the constituency into the House, and our people revelled in their work.
I understand that it is the custom of the House to refer in a maiden speech to the previous Member. I follow as Member for Carmarthen a gentleman whose presence in the House constituted a record for his party, for he was its only Member of Parliament in the party's 45 years' history.
The Carmarthen constituency has both an agricultural and an industrial life. I hope to return on another occasion to the problems of the industrial part of the constituency, but suffice it to say that all are aware of the importance which the anthracite coalfield played in moulding the character of the people.
Carmarthen is the foremost dairy county in the whole of Wales. Over 62 million gallons of milk are produced, and there is an estimated income of over £8 million from milk sales. There are several creameries in the constituency, based on the large milk production. Therefore, the prosperity of the dairy industry is vital to the county's future. It is for this reason that so much apprehension exists within the constituency with regard to brucellosis, particularly when one reads, as in World Medicine of 23rd September, 1969:
Britain is one of the few countries in Western Europe which still has endemic brucellosis. In cows, the natural hosts, the disease causes abortion, loss of milk yield and lowered fertility. In man it can cause anything from a mild transient fever to a chronic and practically incurable infection.
The British Medical Journal stated that about 1,000 human beings every year are infected with brucellosis. Therefore, the cost to the industry and indeed the effect on human beings demand that a determined programme be carried out to eradicate this disease.
The farmers of Carmarthen are very progressive in their methods and eager to pioneer new developments. To this end Carmarthen has been a pioneer in brucellosis eradication. The farmers of the county have gone into the eradication of brucellosis in their herds with more enthusiasm than in most counties. The latest figures show that under the old

brucellosis accredited herd scheme, over 800 herds are in the scheme, and of this total 439 herds had been declared clean by 30th June last. Over 200 herds have already applied for the new incentive scheme which is the subject of this debate. These figures make Carmarthen way ahead of any county in Wales, and it is the third best county in Britain.
All who are associated with agriculture are aware of the need to combat this disease in the interest of human and animal health. There are far too many people contracting undulant fever, and far too many farmers are sustaining losses in their stocks. It is estimated that this disease costs the industry £2 million per annum.
From now on the Minister will be considering which areas and counties are to be selected as eradication areas in 1971. In this, my first speech, I want to make a special case for the inclusion of Carmarthenshire, and, if the Minister deems it practicable, for the inclusion, too, of Pembrokeshire and Cardiganshire in the areas selected for eradication. In the area of the three counties hundreds of herds have been tested already. Furthermore, it was one of the first areas to be included in the pilot scheme for the compulsory eradication of tuberculosis.
Before I conclude I want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary certain points that are of concern to farmers in my constituency. One is the insurance premium. Some farmers are afraid that it might be too high. Can the Parliamentary Secretary therefore state how the consultations have progressed on this matter—consultations started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes).
Then there is the point that compensation for reactors would be far a more effective inducement than the insurance principle. Although it is said that compensation could lessen the chances of farmers acting swiftly to rid the herd of infected cattle, can the Parliamentary Secretary comment on the possible development of compensation as a means of solving the problem? Obviously the ultimate solution is compulsory eradication, but at present the voluntary scheme seems to be the best one. Care must be taken that there are plenty of clean


herds available for accredited replacements for such time as compulsory eradication comes into effect. That is why an area-by-area approach must be the next step. I agree with the principle of tackling areas of relatively clean herds first so as to create a reservoir of clean stock in readiness for area eradication next year. Area eradication is a sound principle, because, although a farmer may have taken all the necessary precautions, unless he is surrounded by a whole area in which brucellosis has been eradicated a great deal of time and money could be wasted.
Another point of concern expressed in my constituency and probably others is the level of the incentive offered. Although 1¼d. is probably a good start there is room to debate whether this is a sufficient inducement for the future. Others argue that the beef incentive is not sufficiently high to induce beef herd owners to embark upon an accreditation programme. I should like to hear the views of the Minister on those points.
I end on the note that Carmarthen-shire's record merits its being included in the selected areas for eradication.
I have been very honoured to be able to make my maiden speech on a subject of such vital importance to many of my constituents.

4.49 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) thanked me with a courtesy that has made it a real pleasure to have sat up to this hour to listen to him. I am sure that those on these benches agree with me. In previous debates it has been my pleasure to be placed in the fortunate position of complimenting two hon. Members from Wales on their maiden speeches. That makes me realise what a great affinity there is between the Welsh and the Scots. I can well remember saying what excellent speeches the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) and the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) had made. They made a great impact on this House.
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has had so small an audience to listen to

him tonight, but he has certainly warmed our hearts, and I hope that he will help us—because he has a great deal to contribute—in our agriculture debates. We shall listen to him in future with great interest.
We all appreciate the leading place which the county of Carmarthen has taken in its attachment to and enthusiasm for the accredited scheme to date on brucellosis. Brucellosis is a scourge, the main surviving one in animal diseases. It is considerable in cattle and far from insignificant among humans: it is far more widespread in human beings than is generally believed.
For long it has been the intention of successive Governments to come to grips with this problem. The limiting factor in the attack upon it has been, and still is, the strength and availability of our veterinary services. It took 25 years and an all-out drive to get tuberculosis out of the way. So high is the standard which this country sets in all matters veterinary that any diversions have caused a postponement until the decision to proceed was taken in the recent Agriculture Act. It is a formidable task, for which all our veterinary services must be mobilised.
Some people ask, "Why not slaughter all the reactors and pay compensation?" It would be absurd of me not to say, since my remarks are on the record in the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings on the Agriculture Bill, that I took the view then that compensation was essential to success. But I did not know then, and nor did anyone else, other than the Government Ministers of the day—I am not even certain that they did—how different would be the insurance rates under the Incentives Scheme from those which were forecast when we discussed the Bill.
As much as 50 per cent. of the incentive was at that time being bandied about as the price of the insurance premium. In fact, to insure a dairy cow for £60, which is the average figure which featured in the old scheme, would cost 12s., which is only 15 per cent., and not 50 per cent., of the average dairy incentive under the new scheme. This makes all the difference in the world to thinking about compensation.
It is not just a question of a frontal attack on this disease, with no thought


of strategy: there is the all-important question of having enough clean stock before slaughtering reactors left, right and centre. It is also important to pinpoint where the build-up of clean stock can best take place. We know a certain amount about Carmarthen, and there are other areas we know, like Ayrshire, Westmorland and the West of England. We need to find out a good deal more, and hence the testing which the milk marketing boards will be doing for us this autumn.
It is no good to anybody for a farmer to have a reactor slaughtered and then have to pay the earth for clean replacements. It would be worse still if he had to re-stock with untested animals and thereby run the risk of infection all over again. This is why we have the Incentives Scheme, with compulsory area eradication guaranteed to begin in 1971. The first areas will be announced early in the spring. I would not wish at this stage to give a positive commitment that the hon. Gentleman's constituency will be one of these, but I think it would have a very good chance.
It is absolutely vital that we should increase the rate of voluntary accreditation and, more particularly, attract the large number of clean, or relatively clean, herds which we know have so far held back. These are the people who have so much to offer to the eradication effort and who have so much to gain from this new scheme. That is why I reject the arguments of those who press for a return to compensation.
The herd owner we want to see come forward of his own accord in the next year or so stands to gain little, if anything, from the promise of compensation for reactors he probably does not have. This is why the Accredited Herds Scheme held little attraction for him and why, even though we shall be retaining some measure of incentive premiums during compulsory eradication, he will not gain by waiting for us to come and tackle his herd compulsorily.
He will be far better off under the Incentives Scheme, with the promise it holds of a guaranteed financial return from his herd over a five-year period. That is why I believe that, despite the nostalgia that remains in some quarters

for compensation, this scheme will have a considerable impact, both in its own right and in its effect on the momentum of the compulsory eradication campaign.
Discussions will be held about the terms to be offered to those who will be dealt with in the compulsory areas and about the first areas to be chosen. An obvious pointer to these areas will be the results of the surveys which the milk marketing boards will be doing later this year to give us precise information about the incidence of infection in different parts of the country.
The hon. Gentleman referred to certain criticisms of the scheme and, basically, there have been three. First, it has been said that it is wrong to use private insurance to deal with what should be a public obligation. My call for compensation was made when my impression was that the insurance rates would be very high. In view of what I have said on this point, the picture has been completely altered.
Second, the hon. Gentleman referred to the beef premiums and voiced a view that has been quite widely heard, that they are too small compared with the dairy ones. It must be admitted that the risks in a beef herd are a good deal less and that the complications one gets are much smaller than with a dairy herd, and replacements in a beef herd, costly though they are nowadays, are also not as expensive. A beef cow does not cost nearly so much today as a good dairy cow.
Third, there is the criticism that there is no guarantee that the insurance rates will remain at the proposed levels as the scheme moves towards the more difficult herds and the more difficult areas. This is something we must watch, and watch we will, but the present rates are guaranteed for two years at their present levels, and the no-claim bonuses which are being offered give a certain amount of confidence.
I noticed a newspaper report at the weekend by a journalist for whom I have a great respect and who is extremely well-informed. He described the scheme as being still half-baked. I prefer the views of Mr. Anthony Parkin, to whom I listened on the farming programme on the B.B.C. at, I think, quarter past seven on a Saturday morning. His view was. "Let's make this a challenge to get rid


of brucellosis in the 1970s". I should not like to say that by the end of the 1970s we shall have got rid of it. I hope so. It will be a major triumph if we have. But let us at any rate bend all our energies towards doing so. Let us take great encouragement from the fact that applications for the new scheme are coming in from all over the country. Let us give it a thoroughly good send-off.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having raised the subject and allowed me to make the comments that I have.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS

Ordered,
That so much of the Lords Message of 9th July, as communicates the Resolution, That it is desirable that in the present Session, the following classes of Bills shall be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament:

(1) All Consolidation Bills, whether public or private;
(2) Statute Law Revision Bills;
(3) Bills prepared pursuant to the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949, together with any memoranda laid pursuant to that Act and any representations made with respect thereto;
(4) Bills to consolidate any enactments with amendments to give effect to recommendations made by one or both of the Law Commissions, together with any Report containing such recommendations;
(5) Bills prepared by one or both of the Law Commissions to promote the reform of the Statute Law by the repeal, in accordance with the Law Commission recommendations, of certain enactments which (except in so far as their effect is preserved) are no longer of practical utility, and by making other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments, together with any Law Commission report on any such Bill;

be now considered.—[Mr. Eyre.]

So much of the Lords Message considered accordingly.

Resolved,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.—[Mr. Eyre.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Orders of the Day — PRIVILEGES

Ordered,
That the Committee of privilege do consist of fifteen members

Ordered,
That Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Mr. Deedes, Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker, Mr. Douglas Houghton, Sir Elwyn Jones, Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, Mr. Charles Pannell, Mr. Sandys, Mr. G. R. Strauss, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Mr. Turton, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, Mr. William Whitelaw, and Mr. Harold Wilson be Members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.

Ordered,
That Six be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Eyre.]

Orders of the Day — THERAPIA LANE, CROYDON (NOISE AND SMELL NUISANCES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Eyre.]

5.3 a.m.

Sir Richard Thompson: After the wide-ranging debates in the early part of this morning and last night, I turn without apology to a more earthy and domestic theme—the smells and noises which oppress my constituents in Therapia Lane. I hope that the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister means that we shall be able to do something about it.
Therapia Lane is a pleasant road built in the early 1930s at a time when the houses in it formed a pleasant secluded residential oasis off the busy Mitcham Road. That is the sort of condition that the inhabitants would like to see it in now, but, alas, times have changed.
A small industrial estate has been established just outside the Croydon border which has had the effect of turning this formerly peaceful road into something like a motorway. The only access to the estate is through Therapia Lane, and the nature of the activity carried on there results in a constant stream of heavy lorries going through which have entirely destroyed the former peaceful character of that road.
Various firms have set up in the estate and one which has given rise to a great deal of criticism in the area is a refuse disposal firm. Its lorries, many of them 14-tonners, go to and fro making sometimes 80 trips a day, working on Saturday mornings, late at night and sometimes on Sundays. They have transformed peaceful Therapia Lane into a veritable hell of noise, vibration, danger to pedestrians and children, smells and general disturbance.
My constituents did not buy their houses for this. They hoped that they would be living in a peaceful, quiet and orderly environment. This is not what they pay rates for. Their protests about all this nuisance up to now have been ineffectual. They have been driven to holding a street demonstration blocking the road so that the lorries cannot go down it, in their frustration because nothing has been done to mitigate the situation.
Matters were brought to a head a week or two ago when the firm which operated the lorries, F.J.E. Refuse Disposal Ltd., put in an application to Sutton Council to be allowed to enlarge its activities by the construction of a loading ramp for the lorries. This could only mean more traffic in an area already overburdened and where the roads were not built to carry it.
Originally planning consent for this was granted, but subsequently, following residents' protests, Sutton decided at a higher level to defer the matter. I am determined to get a satisfactory solution to this very unsatisfactory situation. It can be done. I have found that all the parties involved are ready to co-operate. Sutton obviously has had second thoughts about the wisdom of giving further planning consent. Croydon has a duty to its ratepayers to do all it can for them and has already indicated to me that it might be able to provide an alternative site for this firm of refuse disposers which might settle the problem.
I am glad that the firm, with whom I have been in direct touch, is ready to co-operate. It has told me that if a suitable alternative site can be found it is prepared to move in a week. There is only one answer; an alternative site must be found—not in a few years time, that

will not do, we have waited long enough—it must be found speedily. The ideal site cannot be put in proper shape overnight to receive industry. There are services,—drainage, sewers, water supply, and so on—to be provided. I am told that this is possible. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell me that when Croydon puts in for loan sanction to provide these necessary works his Department will grant it. This would be a great help to us.
I therefore hope that by the end of this debate my hon. Friend will be able to give assurances which will have the effect of my being able to tell my constituents that at last we have managed to break this impasse, that at last the local authorities concerned have agreed on a suitable alternative site for the refuse disposal unit, and that the effect of moving to the new site will be to stop the excessive industrial traffic and all that goes with it that now passes through Therapia Lane.
If my hon. Friend can give me an assurance such as that, I can tell him that a long-standing grievance among my constituents will have been removed. It is particularly appropriate in conservation year, when we talk so much of the quality of our environment, that my hon. Friend should be able to tell me what steps he can take to restore a decent civilised environment to my sorely tried constituents in Therapia Lane. If he can do this—I believe that the problem can be solved—he will certainly earn their gratitude and mine.

5.12 a.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Graham Page): My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir R. Thompson) is to be congratulated on calling the attention of the House to the very real hardships which are being suffered by his constituents who reside in the vicinity of Therapia Lane, Croydon, which he said was previously a happy and peaceful oasis. I understand that these hardships have already been aired in a formidable street demonstration and also in a public meeting where there were present 250 of the residents and the representatives of Croydon and Sutton.
These hardships arise from the fact that Therapia Lane is the only access to and egress from the industrial estate to


which my hon. Friend has referred known as the New Britannia Wharf. I believe that there is no other practical route to this site. New Britannia Wharf is a former railway goods yard and it is used not only by the undertaking to which my hon. Friend referred—the refuse disposal company—but also by a concrete mixing plant company, Readymix Concrete Limited, and by a plant hire depot, Dudley Vale Metal Union Plant Hire Limited. I understand that each of these undertakings uses vehicles which make what my hon. Friend has called a hell of a noise, disturbance and smell, and which have turned peaceful Therapia Lane into something like a motorway to the distress of the residents there.
The residents can be thankful that they have in my hon. Friend an advocate who will bring their case to the attention of the House, as he has this morning.
Although sympathising with those residents in the serious loss of amenity which they are suffering, one cannot overlook the fact that the firms whose business is on this industrial site are going about their lawful business to the advantage of the public, and I suppose particularly of Croydon and Sutton, in providing cement, in providing contractors' equipment, and in disposing of waste. I say "go about their lawful business", but there is doubt whether the refuse disposal company had planning permission to carry on that business on that site.
The case is complicated by the fact that the residents concerned are in Croydon and the industrial estate where the work is carried on is in Sutton. It is said that the refuse disposal company has been operating without the benefit of planning permission and, therefore, it recently applied for such permission, its application being to Sutton. The House will appreciate that I cannot express any opinion on that application or on any other application which may be made for other sites. These applications for planning permission might be refused and they might, therefore, come to my right hon. Friend the Minister in a quasi-judicial capacity. I must, therefore, refrain from making any comments on their merits in this debate.
I can, however, record the facts and express hopes as to the solution of the

problem which is set by the conflict between the amenities of a residential area and the business interests of certain useful undertakings which I have mentioned. Upon learning of the disposal company's application to Sutton, Croydon, as my hon. Friend has said, proposed alternative sites. I understand that if the parties agree, there will first be a temporary site for the disposal company which will later be moved to a more permanent site. These sites are in Sutton but they belong to Croydon. I understand that negotiations are proceeding well and may be finalised even, perhaps, at a meeting today, or, at least, at a meeting in the early part of August. I hope that the negotiations will succeed.
They will not solve all the difficulties because these negotiations concern the disposal company alone and there are still the other two companies concerned. It is, however, the disposal company, with the 14-ton lorries which my hon. Friend has described, which I think is causing the most disturbance to the residents. This will, therefore, be a substantial solution, if not the whole solution to the problem. At least, it is a start in relieving the residents without putting valuable undertakings out of business.
I said that I could express hopes about the solution. I must disappoint my hon. Friend when I say that I can do no more than express hopes. This is not a case in which the Minister can interfere at this stage. The issues are purely local and in due course my right hon. Friend the Minister will see the propositions put before him by the local authorities concerned. It certainly is not at this stage a case for the Minister to call in for his own decision. It is not a case of substantial departure from the development plan which would have to be brought before the Minister and it is not a case in which there could be discontinuance of the permitted user, which, again, would come before the Minister.
It may be that my hon. Friend's activity and energy over this case has spurred the two councils to coming to an agreement on an appropriate and adequate site for these businesses which will relieve the residents of the hardships which they are suffering.
If the solution to the problem costs money, my hon. Friend asks, will Croydon receive loan sanction? I cannot commit my right hon. Friend to payment of a blank cheque. As I said, this is a local issue, and any decision on loan sanction must depend upon the proposals put forward by the local authorities concerned, the sort of proposals which they desire to make for drainage, for access, and so on, for the new alternative sites. But I am sure that I can go so far as

to say that the two councils seem now to be acting in an eminently sensible way in offering alternative sites, particularly for the disposal company's business, and my right hon. Friend the Minister would be most reluctant to find himself as a stumbling block to a solution of the problem so lucidly and forcefully presented by my hon. Friend this morning.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Five o'clock a.m.